+ Sponsors

Cameras, new

Sunday, 26 June 2016

The previous post already has more addenda appended to it than a David Foster Wallace novel, so let me just separate this out: the lenses for the new Hasselblad X1D are made by Nittoh Kogaku in Suwa, Japan; the body is a Swedish design and is made in Gothenburg, Sweden. In other words, it's a proper Hasselblad to the manor born.

One of about 50 of the first "civilian" Hasselblads, the 1600F of 1949, designed by Viktor Hasselblad and Sixten Sason, with a Kodak Ektar lens. The basic design had many permutations and refinements over many decades, but always remained recognizable

The term "handmade," which Hasselblad pointedly repeats in many places on behalf of the X1D-50c (note engraving in top picture), might be just a wee tad disingenuous...many consumer electronics products including most cameras and lenses are assembled by hand because there's no other way to do it, as numerous "factory visit" videos make clear.

...But let's give 'em that one. "Handmade in Sweden"...yep. Check. Not a Sony with makeup like the ill-advised Lunar nonsense, and Fuji (which made the much-beloved Xpan once upon a time, among other things) is not involved.

So for those who care about such things (some people don't, but some people do), the X1D is a real honest-to-Odin Swedish Hasselblad. As for the lenses being made by Nittoh, it fits precedent. The lenses for the earliest Hasselblads were made by Eastman Kodak in the USA, and then for many years Hasselblad had a very successful cooperative agreement with Carl Zeiss of Germany. The outsourcing of fully dedicated lenses is right in line with Hasselblad's proud—and longstanding—traditions.

Mike(Thanks to Darlene and Jeff)

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Christer Almqvist: "Sixten Sason, who designed the original Hasselblad, also designed the first SAAB car, among other things."

Verve: "The outsourcing of lenses is part of Hasselblad's tradition, as is the outsourcing of sensors. In the past, one would likely use a Hasselblad with Kodak, Fuji, Ilford or Agfa film. Today one uses a Hasselblad with a Sony sensor."

Friday, 24 June 2016

• Destabilexit: David Cameron finally pushed his famous luck too far. Pride goeth before a fall, and we all know how he'll be remembered now. Just as an aside, do they not teach European history in the UK? Just wondering how 52% of the population could so easily dismiss the value of 70 straight years of stability and peace in most of Europe. Someone should tell them that Europeans haven't always gotten along with each other. That last is the understatement of the century—or rather the understatement of the 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. Didn't the UK already have all sorts of special dispensations from the EU to feed its exceptionalism?

But look on the good side—could be very good for Scotland, if it now leaves the UK and rejoins the EU. I'm part Scottish by ethnicity—related to the Johnston and Hamilton clans. The other part is English, though, and I'm sick about this. I hope it won't be, but June 23rd 2016 could be remembered as a very bad day indeed, in the UK and elsewhere.

• We love our British readers (should I say "like and admire"? Is "love" too strong a word for reticent British sensibilities?) But I have to say there has never been much love lost between me and Hasselblad. The company pursued a nasty vendetta against me for a number of years, in response to a snarky comment (one single sentence!) that I once wrote in a Bronica review. (Snarky? Moi?) Granted, that one sentence was...well, pretty bad. But the great lengths they went to for revenge was over the top and out of proportion. Still...

...How about that new Hasselblad?!? I really like the looks of that. I wrote to a friend recently that high prices help insulate me from GAS in a number of cases—I would really like a Sony A7rII and a Zeiss FE 35mm ƒ/1.4, for instance, but don't have to think about either one—and the X1D-50c (the "50c" bit refers to the sensor, indicating the same camera might get different sensors in the future) is well into that territory. But it gives rise to hope that some other company will compete with something similar. Hasselblad has left room for the X1D-50c to be undercut in price.

The X1D-50c would be the perfect counterpart and complement to an iPhone, if it turns out that it works well and has no problems. Wonder who's making the lenses?

• Panaleica cornucopia: Speaking of lenses, there are now six beautiful Panasonic/Leica Micro 4/3 lenses. That cup runneth over. The picture is courtesy Panasonic via Imaging-Resource. (One drawback of cameras made by multinational electronics giants is that the camera divisions get utterly lost in the vastness. I could not for the life of me find that image anywhere on Panasonic's far-flung web presence, nor could I figure out whom to call to ask where it is. Maybe Kevin Purcell can find it. He's a web-research ninja whose powers exceed even my own.)

The new one is the 12mm ƒ/1.4, a superfast ultrawide. (With all 4/3 and Micro 4/3 lenses, simply double them to get the 35mm focal-length equivalents.) Although large for a Micro 4/3 lens, it weighs less than 12 ounces and is less than three inches long, underscoring another great advantage of Micro 4/3.

Early tests of the new lens are highly positive, nay, glowing.

• Naked Miata: A nice video review of the 2016 Miata that shows the chassis and drivetrain with the body removed. I now refrain from gassing on further about that car. Don't think I couldn't.

• Bloomin' 'ell! Last item—come back later to see! [Added now—see below.] I have three or four snaps to post of what happened to the flower buds I showed you the other day. It's extravagant. You won't believe what happened. Astonishing! And you can see what happens when a non-flower-photographer attempts to photograph a Monarch butterfly with a 14mm (21mm-e) Fujinon. But I have to go run and then exercise Butters first—he's always raring to begin his daily project chasing down his beloved tennis ball wherever it goes.

More very soon.

Mike

ADDENDUM #1: Re Brexit...please know that I don't bear the slightest ill-will toward any British TOP reader—or any Briton period—regardless of their views or vote. I'm concerned about events, but I'm no expert, of course. I got a solid briefing from a thoughtful and informed British friend (thanks again, TB) and since then have been reading avidly about the issue. That's all. There's no nationalistic competitiveness here either—I'm just as concerned about the bizarre election season in the U.S.—and I certainly have zero stake in being "right" about anything. I do fear Britain has made a very serious mistake but will hope to be proven wrong about that. I very much wish for the best outcome from all this, for one and all.

Let's hope for the best and that the best thing has been and will be done. The passage of a few weeks will do much to soothe frayed nerves and worries.

ADDENDUM #2: Now as promised earlier...in the "Specialists" post on Tuesday I put up a picture of some plants that looked like they were plotting something. That picture was a few days old at the time. Well, you won't believe what those perfectly innocent-looking plants had planned! Check it out:

The crazy things have staged a riot!

I think the scientific name for these is Sumkinda lillyus. They did this all on their own, too—I had nothing to do with it. All I did was water them when I noticed them drooping (we've had a bit of a mini-drought recently). And boom! Well, not "boom." It took a day or two. Still, the whole flowerbed bursting forth all at once was quite the thing. The previous owner of the house set all this in motion. I don't have much natural feeling for flowers, but I'm sentient and alive, and I think you'd need eyes carved of wood not to enjoy the show.

As I was waiting for the shot above—I wanted the sun to illuminate the flowers but not the barn wall—I happened to see a butterfly, so I had to while away ten minutes attempting to make his portrait. To say that a 14mm lens on APS-C (21mm-e) is not the proper tool for shooting butterflies is probably an understatement. Although I have no idea what would be better. Some things are your thing and some things aren't, and insects are not mine, and I'm resigned to my fate, and over the years have learned to live with it.

Here he is:

Handsome little fellow, eh? Not half bad under the circumstances I don't think. He wouldn't pose and hold still. With a lens as wide as this I really had to stick the camera in the little fellow's face, although he didn't seem to mind. Yeah, I'm an amateur...I'm not sure I've ever photographed a single butterfly in my life, at least as something I meant to do. And if this is indeed the first, it could be the last as well. But it was nice to have the challenge. I have always accepted that photographing insects is a challenge, often a formidable one, for those who are good at it.

As I believe you can tell from this picture, there might even be more blooms on the way. Things have been happening all over this yard. I don't have any idea what to expect next. Only one thing is for sure...

"Life is good."

—Mike the Ed.

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

D. Hufford: "I recall back in September of 2008 watching the financial crisis suddenly pick up speed and knowing my career and life were going to change completely. Though it seems less likely, I am getting a bit of déjà vu. I just bought a Panasonic 12–35mm earlier this year. Turns out I don't really like Panasonic lenses. Except for the Leica branded ones. I love the 25mm ƒ/1.4 and it is probably my favorite lens of the digital era. (Well, the Nikon 14–24mm would be, but I sold mine years ago.) Had I not bought the Panasonic 12–35mm, the 12mm would certainly have interested me...after the price came down a bit."

David Cope: "No, 'love' is fine. We need a lot of that right now."

Jim Allen: "Ya know Mike, you're really starting to draw me into that gravity well the Miata represents. I can feel the slow and inexorable pull as my wallet slowly accelerates towards another impulse purchase.... Seriously though, having an actual engineer discussing details like that in a review is awesome. I don't want that car, I need that car. I wish there were curvy roads in Florida."

Ed. Note: The following two comments came in one right after the other:

David: "I'd just like you to know that I find this at once insulting, condescending and ignorant, so please think a little more before dismissing a brave vote by 17 million people, that must mean a lot to them given the authorities that were telling them to do otherwise and the likely short term pain to be experienced in extricating the country from this institution. This is not like expressing an opinion on sensor size! It is condescending to think that those voting to leave don't know about European history and wars, especially given Britain`s involvement in WWII. It is a simplistic conclusion that recent peace is a result of UK membership of the EU, and that some special clauses you don't know about mean that the other rules of membership you don't know about must be acceptable. P.S. I am an occasional reader and used to pay a volunteer subscription, that is how I came across your post."

Richard Parkin: "No, the specific name is lower case: Sumkinda lillyus. [Fixed again —Ed.] When moving to a house with an established garden it is good practice to wait a year to see what you have so you are doing the right thing.

"Likewise on Brexit wait and see may be good advice because it is now even more obvious that Brexit politicos want something different from what the Brexit voters thought they were voting for. I voted to Remain in 1975 when I was 40ish and have voted to Remain again now I am 80ish so I think I can claim consistency and that I don't fit the demographic of the Remainers. As you will see from some of the comments, some of the most vocal Brexiters are still fighting WWII. I defend your right to have a view on Brexit—when the French asked the US to remove their soldiers from France I recall they were asked if they want the dead ones to leave too."

Mark Cotter (partial comment): "To understand the EU, one has, as an example to think of a pan-Americas organisation that had it's capital in, say, Caracas, and whose trade rules and economic rules and currency applied to everyone from southern Chile to the tip of Alaska: while it would be good for some, it would not be good for others and countries like the US and Canada would tire of the inept bureaucracy and politics of South American countries and the free movement of, say, Mexicans into the US. We live in interesting times over here in the UK and in US politics as well."

robert e: "Would we Americans tolerate an EU-style agreement? The irony! The US was established with an EU-style agreement—the Articles of Confederation. Further irony: the Articles were deemed too weak by our founding fathers, who found inspiration for our second, current, constitution in the far more sovereignty-obliterating Anglo-Scottish union of 1707. I don't suppose I need to rub in the further, sadder irony of the now imminent dissolution of that older union. In other words, we are the result of not only tolerating such an agreement, but doubling down on it, thanks to the example of Great Britain.

"Yes, it was a different time, a different place. But the stakes were even higher. It wasn't put to popular vote, but then neither had been the UK. And we doubled down again, waging bloody civil war to maintain it 100 years later. As Mike said, the arguments persist, and you'll even find active secession movements in several states (most notoriously Texas, Alaska and California)."

Brian Ripley: "In scientific taxonomic nomenclature (not just botany) the genus name is capitalized but not the species name. In butterfly terms, that is not a 'little fellow,' maybe 3x the size of a typical non-tropical butterfly. It is Papilio machaon, the Swallowtail. In the UK (since you keep talking about us) it is the largest resident butterfly and rather rare, but common in most of the rest of the world. Indeed, common enough to have been named by Linnaeus."

Mike replies: I could write a book chapter about this comment, but I shall spare you all, and you're welcome! :-) But thank you Brian for providing those facts.

David Dyer-Bennet: "Some people are trying to set up an analogy betweeen the EU and merging North, Central, and South America. But another way to look at it is that the EU is slowly making its way towards a European version of the United States. Do I accept my fate being governed by legislators who mostly come from states other than my own? As it happens, yes I do! And so do the residents of each and every other state. Even those from states that were formerly at war with us."

Thursday, 23 June 2016

...Looks like we're going to have to officially forgive 'em for the Lunar. Hasselblad, the maker of medium format cameras once heavily favored by studio professionals in North America, has announced the X1D-50c...a small mirrorless body with a huge sensor.

Huge in both ways. Acreage: 43.8 x 32.9mm (compare with the Leica S at 45 x 30mm). And image size: 8272 x 6200 pixels—that's 50 MP. The CMOS sensor is presumed to be the same one used in several other existing medium format cameras and backs, and is claimed to offer 16-bit color depth and 14 stops of exposure range.

Other features include an EVF that switches formats and includes an "X-Pan" panoramic mode, weatherproofing, GPS and Wi-Fi, full HD 1920 x 1080p video at 25 fps, and two card slots.

Initially there will be two not-too-fast but appropriately smallish lenses, a moderate wide 45mm ƒ/3.5 (35mm-e), and a moderate-tele 90mm ƒ/3.2 (70mm-e) in a new lensmount called XCD. A third lens, a wide-angle 24mm equivalent-angle-of-view (30mm nominal), has been promised for Photokina.

Even so an exciting development. And it's handmade in Sweden*, so it's a real 'Blad.

Mike

*ADDENDUM: Several sources have claimed that the camera is being built by Nittoh Kogaku in Sawa-City, Japan. In my comment in the post I was referencing a caption on dpreview, at this link, slide 7, which says, "If there is one message that Hasselblad really wants to get across, it is that this camera is hand-made in Sweden. Equally, Hasselblad representatives with whom we spoke were at pains to stress that the X1D was designed and manufactured in-house and that Fujifilm isn’t involved in any way." Nittoh might be involved somehow, but I don't know if they are or in what way.

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

John McMillin: "So far, the weight and size savings of mirrorless haven't been convincing to me. My Fuji X-Pro1 is a little slimmer than my Pentax K5, with similar lenses, but that's not enough reason to choose one over the other. But when you can eliminate most of the empty space in the mirror box of a format this large, you're really changing the shape of medium format. Even the substitution of an artificial RVF for an analog OVF might be worth this kind of efficiency...but selling every other camera and lens I own, plus my computer, to afford this new wonder is not in the cards for me. This new 'Blad looks like the reincarnation of the Fuji MF rangefinder cameras. Maximum image inside a minimum package. It's definitely interesting."

marcin wuu: "Did you notice the 'X' and '1' in the name? I believe you were poking fun at photographic companies for abusing those. :-) One thing worthy of special note: Unlike every other mirrorless system on this planet, X1D will not take any third-party lenses. It has no in-body shutter, and will rely on leaf shutter in the lens. I am sure it will cost Hasselblad a solid chunk of potential customer base...."

Mike replies: As Ming Thein writes, "Before anybody asks again in the comments, the body contains no shutter. This means whilst the flange distance is very short and some 35mm lenses may well cover the format, they will only be usable if a) there is an electronic shutter implemented in firmware—that has yet to be confirmed, and b) some enterprising third party gets out the lathes."

Lynn: "But how well does it do selfies, cats and flowers? But seriously, congratulations to Hasselblad for finding their mojo."

hugh crawford: "I think they finally realized if they released the Hasselblad version first and then the Sony, people would think they were getting a Hasselblad at Sony prices rather than a Sony at Hasselblad prices."

Tuesday, 14 June 2016

For you Butters fans out there, here is my favorite recent iPhone snap...

Note the all-important love of Butters' life, his ball.

My inventively difficult canine's latest right-angle turn of behavior is that he's started to refuse to fetch. He makes a spectacular leaping catch of the ball, then casually starts sniffing the ground and wandering here and there, or puts the ball down again and grazes on plants like a canine bovine. Or bovine canine, whatever. It's always something with this breed. (Butters is an Attention Hound.)

I tried to get the ball and the plane both in the shot, but by the time I'd worked out the framing—just a few seconds—the plane had left the picture. Still works for me though.

I suppose I could fix it in Photoshop. Just kidding.

I can't remember if I've written about this yet, or just meant to. But have you noticed Apple's recent advertisements? They're just owners' photographs taken with iPhones, with a photographer's byline and the tagline "Shot on iPhone 6s."

Apple ad on the back cover of a recent New Yorker

I consider this a sign of the end of photography. I was fretting years ago about the eventual progress of digital development, because consumer products often start as a race to the top, i.e. in the direction of higher quality, and then, after the market matures, there is a race to bottom, as manufacturers compete to provide the cheapest possible product with just barely acceptable quality. Since we're wholly dependent on the tools the manufacturers provide for us in digital (we were with film and photo paper, too, but somehow it left us with a whole lot more freedom 'n' independence), if the day ever comes that the market won't support serious cameras, we're all going to be increasingly stuck with whatever the lowest common denominator happens to be.

Of course that might never happen. Also, as I've opined in the past, it's quite possible that cellphone cameras will one day be literally better in quality than any other camera it's possible to buy then, never mind any camera it's possible to buy now, because of technologies we can't quite imagine yet supercharged by that utterly enormous and unfathomably rich market.

But you know, I'm kind of a hypocrite...because if I'm honest, I have to admit I take a whole lot of pictures with my iPhone. Because, basically, I take pictures with anything that's handy that takes pictures, because I always have.

I know I've written this before...the incremental improvement of the iPhone suggests a change in equipment strategy. Instead of one small and portable mirrorless camera, why not the iPhone (wherever I write "iPhone," you can substitute "smartphone" if you like) for visual note-taking, friendly communication, and happy fam-damily snaps, and then a big, super-capable, high-DR, high-res FF or even larger-sensor big camera fer Serious and Sunday-Go-To-Meeting shooting? It makes a certain kind of sense.

...And gives me a certain kind of self-indulgent satisfaction, because it opens the door to daydreaming about which big FF-or-larger camera I'd buy. I'm bad about that kind of thing.

I have to say, though, the unstoppable world-eating smartphone juggernaut scares me. That might be irrational. For some reason I just feel it threatens everything I hold dear, photographically speaking.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Eolake: "I know how you feel. I cannot parse the whole thing. I would not go back into a darkroom at gunpoint, but durnit if I don't miss the wonderful Durst enlarger I had as a teen.

"What I can't figure out is why would convenience kill our creative urge? Sometimes it seems it does, sometimes I think it can't possibly."

Kenneth Tanaka: "Living in a heavily touristed area [downtown Chicago —Ed.] I can report with great confidence that phone photography exceeds dedicated camera photography by at least 10-to-1. At least twice a month during spring and summer someone asks me to take their picture. I can't remember the last time anyone handed me anything other than their phone. EVERYONE'S TAKING PICTURES THESE DAYS!

"But I think the up-trend of photography is great. Some would say it's a new language. I don't agree. I believe it most often supplants language. But aside from such socio-cultural debates it's become clear to me that people are actually paying much more attention to what they see.

"Do phone cameras threaten what you hold dear...really? Well OK. But you're declaring that within your interests in photography you hold technology and process more dearly than end-product. That, of course, has long been the art world's big knock against amateur photographers in particular, and photography in general for most of the medium's history.

"I love today's photo tech (and have the receipts to prove it). But there is absolutely nothing I hold more 'dearly' than the final image, most especially the final print. Whether that print came from a goop-slathered glass plate or a 100mp Phase One back...or a cell phone camera...does interest me but only so far as it plays a role in that print.

"I pledge my allegiance to the image."

Mike replies: So you're saying the art world champions iPhone images over the work of those nasty old amateurs...and you hold prints from iPhone images particularly dear? To paraphrase the Soup Nazi, "No more Leica for you! Only iPhone from now on!" :-)

Steve Jacob: "Phones just happen to be good enough for most people's imaging needs, just as 35mm used to be.

"But I see potential images on regular days out that deserve attention, so I want a camera I can take anywhere, all the time, that doesn't compromise on IQ. My D800 did not fit into that category, any more than my 645 did in 1981. I had to plan to use them.

"I carry a man-bag anyway, and my X-Pro2 and 23mm fits in there and doesn't weigh me down. It also meets my most stringent quality criteria (A2 print size) so I'm happy. I don't want or need anything I have to plan around, and I don't need more IQ than I have. Perfect.

"The gulf between an iPhone sensor and a typical APSC (or MFT) sensor is huge—certainly in terms of DR, colour response and tonal depth. The surface area is around 20X bigger.

"But the gulf between APS-C and FF is not huge at all. It's about 1 stop, and not always that if you need more DoF. If the choice is between sacrificing a stop, or a good opportunity, I'd rather sacrifice the stop.

"Nor will physics ever overcome diffraction. There is a lower limit to the useful size of a pixel, whatever technology is employed, so tiny pixels will never replace bigger pixels. Arrays of big-pixel sensors have possibilities, but that's yet to happen.

"Right now, phones are mainly replacing digicams. The large sensor market is just leveling out as the technology matures, but it ain't dead yet.

"There will doubtless be improvements down the line in terms of optics, sensors and packaging, but that still leaves the control interface as a major stumbling block. I want direct control and a viewfinder, not a menu and a screen I can't see in bright light.

"Again, cameras like the X-Pro2 and GX8 are a comfortable compromise for my hands."

Glenn Brown: "As a pro photographer I am in awe of my 20-year-old daughter and her iPhone 6, she takes marvelous photos every day and loves it. Photography is very alive in our family."

"It wasn't so long ago that we were awash in small, frustratingly crappy digicams—from brands both legendary and obscure; many, if not most, with pitiful image quality, response and handling. The worst were little more than scams. By making the junk-cam free, connecting it to social media (let's not forget social media's very significant role in the revolution), and continually improving it, smartphones forced camera makers to up their game—raising the bar on small cameras all the way up to 'adequate,' and on not-so-small cameras to 'really, really good.'

"And here we are in a compact-camera renaissance. There were casualties, but that's the nature of culling and pruning. The result is a much healthier herd or plant, better able to do its job. Can any happy snapper or serious photographer say our options and capabilities aren't far better than, say, ten years ago, with very few of our needs unmet? (Even leaving aside technological advances in component size and battery life.)"

Mike replies: You know, I think I like your opinion better than my own. May I pretend I wrote this?

John Camp: "Camera phones are to photography what blog comments are to writing—a form of conversation about stuff that can range from trivial to crucially important, but which lack the formal structure and depth that develops with time and contemplation."

Mike replies: Also very well said.

David Raboin: "I love those iPhone photo ads. We live in the Bay Area and those photo billboards have lined our freeways for a couple of years now. I use them as a mobile photo workshop for my eight-year-old daughter. Whenever we pass one of those billboards we discuss the photo's merits, why it works or doesn't work, and how it fits in with the rest of Apple's ad campaign. My daughter thinks it's great sport. We laugh at the bad pics and marvel at the good ones."

Jay Pastelak (partial comment): "I use the iPhone like a camera: I'm conscious of 'taking pictures.' We've had students in the photo program where I teach who, with a smartphone, made extraordinary pictures but couldn't do the same with a 'real' camera.

"I don't find the "smartphone juggernaut" frightening, just curious: For my millennial student who's got his phone in his hand all day, the phone's camera is just an extension of him, and it makes no sense to him to use something else. "

Earl Dunbar (partial comment): "The biggest issue for me is handling...as convenient as a smartphone is, for me its handling doesn't fully support the freedom of composition, control and timing that a real camera does. Others may not find that a barrier at all, and good for them. I will enjoy their iPhone images just as much as if they made them on a dedicated camera."

Maggie Osterberg: "Oh my god, the Kodak Instamatic with cartridge film is THE DEATH OF PHOTOGRAPHY!"

Mike replies: I realize you're being funny/ironic/snarky here, but an Instamatic was my gateway to photography. I went on a seventh-grade school trip to Washington D.C. and Gettysburg and shot six cartridges of film (the long ones—24 exposures each), which almost everyone I knew thought was a huge amount of shooting. We've discussed in the past the virtual certainty that many of "the photographers of tomorrow" will look back and say they got their start in imaging using a cellphone or tablet.

My niece already loves taking pictures and she shoots mainly with her iPad. She also crops instantly, instinctively and almost without a thought using the pinching gesture. For example, I handed my phone to her after taking a snap of her in a sandwich shop and when she handed it back to me she had cropped it radically and made a completely different composition.

MHMG (partial comment): "My only beef with the iPhone (smartphone) category of digital photography is not the original image quality or anything to do with ease of creation. It's with the image sharing commingling of family and friend-shared digital assets leading to an utter abdication of image provenance decorum."

[Read the rest of "partial comments" in the full Comments section, reached by clicking on "Comments" at the bottom of the post. The rest of MHMG's comment is fascinating. —Ed.]

Sam: "I cannot imagine why I would want to carry around a phone all day...someone might call me."

Gato: "Not the answer I would have written a few days ago, but I'm thinking how many cell phone photos will be shown and wept over at memorial services in Florida over the next few days. I don't think many people will be complaining if the details are not quite sharp or the colors are a bit off. They will just be glad they have the memory.

"But as to my original thoughts, everything I hear knocking phone photography is stuff I've heard before. I heard it 15 or so years ago from film folks talking about digital. I heard it 50 or 60 years ago from Speed Graphic guys talking about Rollei and Nikon. I'm sure the glass plate guys said it about roll film, and the the Daguerreotypists said it about wet plate. I've heard that a few hundred years ago sculptors were saying much the same thing about painters. Almost every day I see cool, interesting or even wonderful photos that would not have been made without a phone camera. And I think that's great. I'm just glad people are making and enjoying photos."

Mike replies: It's true, it's all there in the literature. Professionals were complaining bitterly that the swarm of snapshooters using "hand cameras" would ruin their business...in the 1890s. And consider Peter Henry Emerson's capitulation in "The Death of Naturalistic Photography." Emerson went to war with Henry Peach Robinson, who made composite images by combining up many separate negatives. Emerson, an early purist, insisted that photography was its own medium and had its own integrity, and that every picture should be a single, unretouched exposure. Although Emerson himself believed he lost the argument, his views were much more in line with modernism that those of his opponents.

Robin Parmer: "It's time for everyone fixated on gear and knowledge as indicative of 'photography' to simply forget it. It's historical thinking. It belongs with the dinosaurs. The next innovation, already demonstrated in the lab, will allow the manufacture of a 'camera' (the term will lose its meaning) that can be hidden on any surface. All it will take is a thin film in place of a lens, and a few microscopic processor chips. Cameras will be everywhere. They will be floating in the air we breath. That's the inevitable future. Phones are just the start."

Mike replies: ...And that apocalyptic-flavored sentiment seems like a good place to bring the Featured Comments to a close for this post! Thanks to all.

Friday, 10 June 2016

There are several things about the Panasonic GX8 (currently on sale and less than $1k) you would like a review to answer...one, how well does the Dual IS system work? And two, is the alleged shutter-shock problem real, or is that just a random slander to give armchair shoppers on the Internet something to bite their fingernails about?

The problem is, I can't really answer either question.

The reason I can't say anything about the shutter-shock problem is that, having heard about it, and being nervous about missing pictures, I switched the camera to electronic shutter to avoid it so none of my pictures could be ruined. (I think both the illustrations below are with the camera on mechanical shutter, however.) I was then on the lookout for any of the problems that the electronic shutter is alleged to cause. But unfortunately (this happened with the GX7 too), in all my shooting I never had any problems with the electronic shutter. My advice on this head would be, if you're concerned about it, read up on the issue, shoot with the electronic shutter most of the time, and switch to the mechanical shutter in those rare situations where you expect the electronic shutter might lead to problems. My general observation is that when a problem is said to exist but people who are looking hard for it have difficulty provoking it to happen, it might not be too much of a problem. But bear in mind I found out essentially nothing solid about the issue that might add to discussions elsewhere.

Also, I only used one lens with the camera, the 12–35mm ƒ/2.8 Panasonic zoom (currently on sale for $200 off). I really liked the lens, although it has stiff competition (Panasonic has a problem with that...it keeps coming up with great products which are then overshadowed by products that have slightly better specs) in the Olympus 12–40mm ƒ/2.8. To really have the last word on the alleged problem, you'd need to test it exhaustively with many different lenses. I'm sorry I can't be of more help here.

I'm also not going to say much about the Dual IS. It appears to work; how many stops it might gain for you, I can't say. I have some particular personal problems when it comes to objectively testing IS.

Mike you are worthless!...I know. So what can I say about the Panasonic GX8 that might be useful to you?

Just this: I think that ergonomically, from a functional handling standpoint, this is one of the best digital camera designs I've ever used.

I've been through some changes with Panasonic—I've owned or borrowed about five of them, starting with the GF1 (with the 20mm lens) which was my main camera for about three years, until about 2012. To say the company's design goals have been rather inconsistent is something of an understatement. Its premium mirrorless cameras have taken wild swings back and forth from one idea to another. The GF1 was a utilitarian brick, no-nonsense and workmanlike; the successor GX1 took small 'n' light to an extreme, being almost too small for adult human hands; the greatly improved but underrated GX7 looked sidewise at the Fuji X100 as an exercise in exquisite, jewel-like design, elegant and delicate.

With the GX8, Panasonic took another wild swing of the pendulum, throwing out the idea of small-as-a-virtue, but also tossing out the design-exercise aesthetic of the GX7, going back to the idea of a workmanlike brick that's meant to be used...but with a lot of the GX7's feature-richness kept on board.

The result, I think, is singularly successful.

And now, just when you didn't want it, a digressionOne thing that's still shifting and changing about digital cameras is the degree to which different designs are allowed to "settle." It was a big advantage of the film era—refinement was slow and gradual, and designs evolved rather than being replaced. Leica's most successful rangefinder, the M6, was an M4-P with a manual light meter built into it, and the M4-P was made with some of the tooling for the M4 that had been sent from Germany to Canada. It was a steady and slow evolution. Nikon's first standard for the F pro SLRs was that they'd have ten-year lifecycles. Now, if you find a digital camera you love, well, enjoy it while it lasts, because it might not last long.

There have been some exceptions—Canon particularly, but Nikon almost as much, has tried to stay consistent with its SLR designs. The practical advantages are that users are already basically familiar with new bodies as well as with different bodies in the same lineup. The disadvantages are that it precludes top-to-bottom rethinks and the innovation that requires, as well as a certain boring sameness after a while that can put a damper on excitement and, hence, sales. Another exception is of course the "refresh"—Mark II and III, and so on, variants of basic designs.

Stop hereSo may I just say that I truly hope Panasonic will stop here for a while with its top-of-the-line mirrorless design. The GX8 probably looks good to use to you, from afar, but it's actually better than it looks. I was encouraged that Fujifilm took a "Mark II" approach to the X-Pro1, even though it's called the X-Pro2. They took the best parts of the initial design and refined it exhaustively. That's how great cameras evolve. And it's a relief for users when they don't have to say goodbye to their favorite designs and learn a new body all over again from scratch. There would be nothing wrong with refining the GX8 in the same way. Really, the basic design is so good that it just shouldn't be thrown out with the next swing of the pendulum.

Dawn

Dusk

So what's good about it? Well, I'm not going to make exhaustive descriptions of, or arguments in favor of, each feature. You can go to the big review sites for that, the ones that have staff and only talk tech.

The things I like best about the GX8:

The size: Not too big, not too small, just-right hand grip. Weight-to-size ("density") is just about perfect too.

The VF: Love the viewfinder. The tilting feature seems somehow more serious and more useful than the same feature on the GX7. It's not just for use as a chimney finder (i.e., pointed straight up). In fact, I find that using it as a 45° angle finder is perfect, allowing a very comfortable and stable hand-holding stance with either eye. (Side note: the GX8 is a great camera for left-eyed shooters and also people who wear glasses). Also, you can completely cut out stray light outdoors so the view through the eyepiece is saturated and clear—I had no problems shooting in bright light. The EVF itself—although it's one of those things that can be noteworthy for only so long, as progress in the technology marches on—is the best I've so far experienced, edging out the excellent EVF on the Fuji X-T1, which itself is one of that camera's best features.

Touchscreen: This is the first touchscreen (save the ones on my i-devices) that I truly like. It makes changing basic menu settings quick and simple, and I just love the way you can place the focus point using your right thumb on the touchscreen as you shoot. As good as the joystick on the Fuji X-Pro2? Can't say, but Panasonic's solution works a treat, that's for sure.

Button 'n' dial configuration: In keeping with emerging practice, the camera is extremely configurable. You can change all sorts of things to suit your taste, from almost all the physical buttons to the directions the dials turn. I didn't do so, but I could see that if I owned the camera and took the time to set it up the way I wanted to, it would make the camera that much easier to learn to operate intuitively. (All the more reason the next iteration should preserve the same form-factor—you're going to put some effort into first customizing the operation of the camera, then using it enough that it becomes second nature. That's effort and practice you don't want to throw away three years from now when the body is replaced.)

Lenses: I should mention again (I've said it before) that I love Panasonic lenses. They're all just the right size, great in quality, and you can put together a splendid, very sensible outfit that won't break either the bank or your back.

IS: ...Even though I can't quantify its advantage. (This was the reason I tried the camera, because I suspect I personally need IS at age almost 60.)

The things I don't like? The swivel viewing screen. I much prefer flip-ups. That's just a settled preference of my own, and your take might be the opposite. Oh, and I had some problems with the battery door sticking, and my fingers are too big to remove the SD card comfortably. No biggie, but, in the Irony Dept., the old GF1 was perfect in this respect. See what I mean about not changing what works?

'Gestalt'The overall "rightness" of this body design is where this thing scores like Stephen Curry. It's got the mojo of a pickup truck: fit for working and the tool for the job. The whole package has a sort of git 'er done gestalt that makes you feel like you're set to take on any task. It's not too pretty and not too precious, but oh man does it all come together.

I loved this camera, and I think it's better than a) appearances, and b) you probably think it is.

Granted there's a huge amount of competition in the mirrorless space...a glut, even. But I hope the GX8 (here's the link again) won't be semi-ignored like some of Panasonic's bodies have been when they get apparently overshadowed by the competition. Try this before you diss it. The company's designers hit the nail on the head this time around. I really do hope this will be a long-lived design. It deserves to be.

[Ed. Note: Bear in mind that TOP is no longer publishing on weekends! So I'll see you on Monday. I said before I was going to do a techie post on Mondays and "Open Mike" on Fridays, but I'm switching that around. I think it's better to have a photo topic sitting at the top of the site for the whole weekend; to have an "Open Mike" up there could mislead surfers as to what the site is all about.

Hope you don't miss me too much, but, even more, I hope you don't forget to come back. Have a nice weekend!]

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Mike: "Yup, it's the best Panasonic camera ever. I've been a dedicated Lumix user professionally since the arrival of the GH3. I've used up two of those, two GX7's, and still have two GH4's with about 180,000 clicks on each. The GH4's have been retired to video only duty since the GX8 is out.

"I have two GX8's and use them exhaustively for all of my stills, professionally and for personal use where I use the square crop. They are the best still camera, for me since the advent of digital. I love the swivel screen because it lets me shoot verticals from low or high viewpoints, and even around corners or from inside a scientific hood pointing backward because it lets me see the composition from any angle, and set the focus point too.

"Now that my company is purchasing my cameras, finally, after three years of providing my own, they got me Sony A6300's. And, I hate them. They feel like toys compared to the Lumix cameras, and the lack of touch screen makes choosing the AF points absolutely maddening. Plus they overheat when outside in the sun, and sometimes just stop working altogether until I remove the battery and restart it.

"Don't get me started on the menus. And then there's the lenses. Blah, ugh, blech. Not nearly enough, slim pickings when it comes to available focal lengths and lens speed, and mediocre performance.

"The Micro 4/3 system is very complete. I mix and match my lenses between Panasonic, Olympus and Voigtlaender, and there's nothing that I need and either don't have or can't get. I much prefer the Lumix bodies over the Olympus, which are too small for the most part, and the batteries are underwhelming. I've never been happier with a camera, or the whole system as I am now. Good stuff.

"Oh, and I've never seen the effects of shutter shock, ever. I shoot in the danger zone all the time, and it's never ever reared it's blurry head in my experience of probably over half a million frames with many bodies."

Alan: "I recently ran into the shutter shock issue for the first time when using a GX7 and 14–42mm OIS kit lens. I'd previously used primes on the GX7.

"Once I saw the problem I Googled it and did my own little tests and although I found the issue intermittent and limited to that lens on the GX7, it's present enough to make me want to avoid using shutter speeds of 1/80th to 1/250th when using that camera and lens.

"Switching to electronic shutter is a work-around in natural light but I've seen banding in shots taken under artificial light and it completely ruined a shot I really wanted. So sadly it's an issue for me with the GX7 and 14–42mm when using the mechanical shutter at the sort of shutter speeds I'd be using in lower natural light and also when using the GX7 and the electronic shutter with any lens under some artificial lighting.

"The shutter shock issue ruined every shot I took on a day out (I'd been shooting in low light so I set the shutter speed to 1/200th and thought I'd be OK but unbeknownst to me this is right in the shutter-shock range and every shot is soft) and the banding issue ruined a shot I really wanted so I seem to hit problems both with shutter shock and when trying to avoid it, at least under some artificial light.

"As my G7 also has a few little niggles I'm not exactly happy with Panasonic. If they bring out a problem-free GX7 type camera (but I'm not getting the new GX80) I might buy one and maybe even a mini DSLR type camera too but only once the geeky Internet crowd have declared them shutter shock free.

"I'd advise anyone thinking about buying a Panasonic camera to research these issues and decide if the workarounds of using the electronic shutter or avoiding the affected shutter speed range are acceptable or not.

"I don't want to risk losing any more shots to these issues so until the shutter shock issue is fixed Panasonic isn't getting another penny from me."

Monday, 23 May 2016

Nikon D500The Nikon D500 is a milestone. The biggie camera companies' commitment to the smaller sensor has been less than inspiring overall—as is often noted, neither Canon nor Nikon have ever bothered to build even adequate offerings of APS-C-specific prime lenses, and, after a desultory hodgepodge of offerings, Sony backed away from providing a full lens lineup for its former NEX cameras. ("Get an adapter, sonnyboy"?) The central signal of this lack of interest was that after first committing to APS-C for its pro offerings, Nikon reversed itself and went to FF ("full-frame," 35mm size...which used to be called "miniature" when it was a film format, but never mind). The 300S was its last pro-level APS-C camera, and that came out almost seven years ago now. Users waited, and waited. The professional-grade APS-C DSLR became Nikon's lost child, wandering in the wilderness.

The D500 is the Prodigal Son coming home again. It can of course be used as a main camera for general shooting, but as a $2,000 body with no IBIS its main brief for actual professionals is to serve as a specialty camera for sports-and-action photography and for those who shoot telephotos and need the reach—bird photographers for instance should love the D500. It has a high frame rate, very fast AF using an array of focus points the width of the entire frame, and an AF-point selection joystick. And with an XQD card (that stands for eXtra Quick Damn card...no it doesn't, but that's how I manage to remember it) it can gobble captures impressively before pausing to burp.

It will also have a very good viewfinder. Why is that important? Because most APS-C DSLRs for amateurs don't. And it's nice to have that option.

D300s fans who have been wandering in the desert for 40 digital years are back to the land of milk and honey.

Pentax K-1One downside of the new Nikon D500? It's no smaller, and only slightly (150g) lighter, than the Pentax K-1, the long-awaited, do-everything FF body from Ricoh. (That is, without the battery grip shown here.)

Maybe I've been in this business too long, but the K-1 puts me in mind, a little, of the Minolta Maxxum 9, Minolta's 1998 swan song pro body. That Maxxum (called Dynax overseas) addressed longstanding gadfly complaints that Minolta didn't have a professional body (although it had tried back in '93 with the 9xi, a different camera than the 9). So Minolta finally gave in and produced one, and it was terrific...but it didn't have a pro system around it, its competitors were already well entrenched, and the market was shriveling because digital was on the way. So it kind of fizzled. Cut to 2016, and Pentax has endured longstanding gadfly complaints about its lack of a full-frame body. But its competitors are already well entrenched, and the market is, if not shriveling, at least contracting...

...And the all-new K-1 also looks to be terrific. In this day and age when multinational giants are competing fiercely with traditional cameramaking companies, Pentax is perhaps the only marque that is both: a fine old name (Pentax was the top consumer SLR in the 1960s) with the resources of a multinational giant, Ricoh, standing behind it. Can the K-1 compete, or is it too little, too late? Helping it along is a very nice price indeed for a camera packed with this much technology, especially at introduction—less than $1,800. I'll see one on my next visit to B&H Photo in New York City, in the meantime we'll hope it meets a better fate than the old Maxxum 9. But then this is manna from heaven for long-suffering Pentax fans, and Pentax fans are among the most loyal of all. The K-1 is currently back-ordered.

The very best thing about the K-1? Back to native angle of view for the wonderful Pentax Limited 31mm, 43mm, and 77mm lenses*.

Fuji X-Pro2It's kinda funny that everybody has migrated to FF just as APS-C gets surpassingly good. The story of Fujifilm has been one of the great success stories of the past ten years, growing from next to nothing. What was Fuji in 2006 but a maker of a modified Nikon with a funky sensor (the S3) and a bunch of point-and-shoots like the cute little Z1? The X100 created a bonafide international sensation in late 2010 when it first appeared, and speculation that was half rumor and half hopeful fantasy flew in all directions about an interchangeable-lens version. Fujifilm very promptly fulfilled expectations with the X-Pro1, which, when it came out in early 2012, was one of the most hotly discussed and widely desired cameras of the whole digital era.

Did Fujifilm then either rest on its laurels or reinvent its own camera? It did not. Thanks to David Hobby we got an inside look at how Fujifilm went about exhaustively refining every aspect of the older camera to make it better in every way—while not changing its basic character, shape, operation, advantages, or "gestalt."

They fixed the battery slot; diopter correction is now built-in; there's a joystick for focus-point placement (double press it and focus resets to the center of the frame); there are two card slots (one UHS-II, if that matters to you); and about the only way that speed has not improved is in startup time...which is faster, just not enough to be really noticeable.

The unique viewfinder, denied even to Leica, was the original camera's most distinctive feature. But it's strongest point was its image quality. That has been significantly improved, and is the leading edge of the wedge as the Fujifilm X-Pro2 garners glowing praise from all over the world.

Sony A6300I like refinement: it's a sound idea. Take a good design and make it better by getting feedback, improving weaknesses, and building on strengths.

Sony's A6300 is the furthest development yet of its NEX concept, which began in 2010 with the NEX-5 and NEX-3, Sony's first "mirrorless" cameras (although it took a while for the world to settle on that term). In 2010 it was a formidable combination of a super-tiny camera and a sensor as large as most DSLRs had at the time. All that is not quite as special any more as it was then, and Sony's interests have moved on to greener (think FF, and "green" as in $$) pastures, but meanwhile the concept has benefited from six years of steady refinement and steady improvement over multiple models. The current iteration isn't so wee, because really, it's better to size a camera to fit the hands of humans. But it's been refined into a highly usable and very user-friendly camera.

The A6000 was evidently a huge bestseller, surprising even Sony. It just seemed to hit that magic sweet spot of high performance, small size and convenience, and low cost. The A6300 is a "no, we meant this" type of refinement—"better" in numerous small ways, including, notably, construction quality. (Cynics might say it's a way to come in on top of the A6000 in price-point for customers who are less price-sensitive, but we're not cynics.) It does have a claim to fame: fastest autofocus in the world. Asterisk, among ILC's with APS-C sensors. But still, super-quick.

The A6000 is still in the lineup, and continues to be the better choice for those conserving precious shekels. Fast, light, cheap, and not too hard to learn to use, I'd say it's the number one recommendation for parents taking pictures of kids.

Lenses? It doesn't make a huge amount of sense, because it's too big and too costly, but if for the dedicated enthusiast, the Zeiss 24mm ƒ/1.8, a lens I owned and still miss, remains a particular recommendation. It would be a shame to own an A6300 without also owning the Zeiss 24mm. I'd say it's worth shooting Sony's ex-NEX cam just to use that beautiful lens....

-

[To be continued next Monday...]

Mike

*There's no way for me to segregate the named lenses from the other Limited lenses at the link. Check FF coverage compatibility for the lenses you're interested in.

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Michael Murphy (partial comment): "For the best lens for the Nikon D500, get the Sigma 17–50mm ƒ/2.8 OS instead of the much more expensive Nikon. DxO rated the Sigma as the sharpest standard zoom on the D7100. I have both the Nikon and Canon versions. [...] Now I just wish I could find an equally low priced, good quality 70–200mm ƒ/2.8 or equivalent to match! Even Thom Hogan recommend the Sigma over the Nikon, when the Sigma cost $600+. At $419 it is a steal."

Richard: "Speaking of miniature cameras, did you know that the Manhattan Miniature Camera Club is still in existence? You should pay them a visit the next time you're in town, it might be worth a story."

Mike adds: From the Club's welcome page:

"Why 'miniature?' When our Club was founded, back in 1933, 'miniature,' or 35mm, photography was new and exciting. In fact, the Leica, the first successful 35mm camera, had been introduced only eight years earlier. The term 'miniature,' meaning the smallest standard format, was much used until the 1950s, and though the word no longer applies to 35mm cameras, we proudly keep it in the official name of our Club, both because it indicates that it is one of the oldest clubs in the metropolitan area and because it is the name by which the Club is widely known."

Jim R: "While it's not a flood, the number of people 'dabbling' in the K-1 is quite impressive. Source data = new member welcome page at pentaxforums, a USA user site. I never thought I'd see such a thing—multiple users of other brands coming to Pentax each day...and not just lurking!"

Monday, 16 May 2016

I'm not sure I'm the best person to talk to about rumors. I just seem to lack the gene that gets all tweaked out for upcoming things. Where is the world headed to?!? What's going to happen to it? Like, it's been spinning on its axis rilly rilly fast while traveling in this giant arc around this rilly close star! Where's it going? Where's it gonna end up? What's going to happen to the world?!?

Chill. It's just going around and around like an idiot kid who won't get out of the revolving door is all.

I mean, I like new products. I just don't quite see the point in getting too lathered about them before they're real.

Of course I understand that many people really do enjoy rumors. I hung out on the ND section of Miata.net for about two years before the 2016 Miata was unveiled, and I'm pretty convinced there are still some guys out there who won't get out of bed or pull the covers off their heads because they miss their favorite form of argumentation and disputation so much and are still grieving. That car was discussed so much before anyone knew anything that just the rumormongering had became a lifestyle for some guys. A bunch of middle-aged motorheads arguing heatedly over speculative beliefs that couldn't be confirmed or debunked—there's fun for ya.

So I'm not one to rain on anyone else's parade. Clearly, people love camera rumors. Call it...nextmania. The craze for whatever's coming next.

So anyway—I started off track here and am now going to take a crowbar and wrench myself back on course—there's a rumor that's been going around, that started apparently on sonyalpharumors.com, that Sony will release a full-frame mirrorless camera in the Fall positioned above the A7 series. The "A9"—not an official name—will have either 72 or 80 megapixels, and continuous capture (without a buffer limit), writing to dual high-capacity, superfast XQD cards. (In related news, my mental hard drive for things known by three initials is almost full, and nothing will delete—but never mind.) Fantastic! So you'll be able not only to record pictures that are too big, but you'll be able to get too many of them too fast, too.

Sorry, I'm just trying to be funny. I don't mean that.

...Meanwhile, we just couldn't have IBIS in the A6300, could we. Grump.

We could either discuss the "A9," or just wait till it happens. I suppose I'll be ready to write about it after it's been out for a year. I guess I'm more of a classicist. When I was young I was more interested in old things than new things.

Mike

P.S. Every time someone in the Comments uses the phrase "game changer" it's going to hurt me like a bee sting, as I'm allergic to it. Do as you like, but take it easy on me please. :-)

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Dennis: "I think we need to stop measuring camera companies on big flashy numbers like 72 MP. Take a lesson from sports and their assists and turnovers, earned run averages and more stats than you can shake the proverbial stick at.

"How about measuring each camera company's LBR (lens to body ratio) each year? Or it's FFC (full frame to crop)? What's their average FU (firmware updates per body)? We can talk which company has an aging lineup and which one is in (or should be in!) a rebuilding season. Just think how much easier it would be to argue over who's best if you had access to stats like these (and 20 or 30 others).

"Of course, to settle it once and for all, we'd need a fantasy camera league. That would undoubtedly be more fun than taking pictures for some."

Monday, 02 May 2016

The short announcement at Engadget got me thinking. Hmmm. Would have to think hard about this. I see the logic of keeping it simple. But how do you do firmware updates with no way to interact with the camera? Maybe you have no firmware updates. Or maybe the interface is all on my computer?

I am thinking about how I actually use my M9. For all of its flexibility, I actually keep the thing on a set of settings and do most of my manipulation after the fact. For me:

RAW only

ISO 400, unless circumstances dictate otherwise

Color space set to...I can't even remember. Adobe RGB?

Image size: Set to max

Motor drive: 3 fps

So, OK. As far as it goes, Leica has more or less standardized my choices as the only choices on this new machine.

This raises the question: So what do I actually use the screen for? Well, I do have some lenses that back-focus, or for which the DOF changes unevenly as they are stopped down. The 50mm ƒ/1.5 Sonnar comes to mind. Checking focus is easy and has eliminated the little note cards I used to keep with each problematic lens back in my film days.

Also, I use some lenses—like my 15mm and 21mm's without an auxiliary finder, and have been checking what is actually in the frame using the M9's screen. So I'd have to change that part of the workflow.

I also tend to share the best of a series with the subject in real time...sort of like: look how good you (or your child or your pet or whatever) look. Without the screen, the camera is less of a social device. It would be OK for street photography, maybe. Say goodbye to the whole "but you weren't even in the picture..." tension-diffuser with a mad member of the public, or a cop, or whatever. Also, the "is that a digital camera?" question/answer gets a little more nuanced. "Yeah, it is digital, but you'll have to trust me...."

Ironically—and maybe this is why I have devoted any thought to a camera I can't afford and won't consider purchasing until I am looking at a used one in seven years—this camera, in terms of workflow, is more or less what I imagined I would be using back in 2000. I thought—insanely incorrectly, as it turns out—that for our Manual M's we would have a drop in focal-plane sensor with the "cassette" space taken up with a small battery, storage, and associated electronics. Ironically, the battery and storage pieces of my cockamamie future-proof idea are "there" (have you seen the size of the storage chips most phones take? Sixteen MB on a chip the size of my little fingernail...and this is the "old" tech). I just never imagined how quickly film would go poof as the medium of choice. Shows what I know/knew.

I also imagine that by cutting out the screen and its battery requirements, all firmware except one preset set of settings, etc. that Leica may actually have a better profit margin on the M-D as a unit than their current M-of-the-year that has to have a team of engineers thinking about how all those pieces fit together, and how they will be upgraded, and supported etc. I will be listening for sales reports with a bemused sense of detachment.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Mark Roberts: "If you shoot strictly raw you are quite right to have ignored the color space setting: It affects only in-camera JPEG."

Wolfgang Lonien: "Mike, 'Zahnwalt' would come to mind—a made-up word out of 'Zahnarzt' (dentist) and 'Anwalt' (lawyer). That is also the group which is usually getting the biggest and baddest Harleys—they can't really ride them; it's more about the possession (and on Germany's roads at least, a small Ninja-like fighter motorcycle would drive circles around them anyway)...."

Kenneth Tanaka: "No camera company indulges in past-tense pretense more devotedly than Leica. 'Step back to the future.' 'Focusing on the essential.' 'The joy of anticipation.' Who gets up, eats breakfast, and goes to work to write this stuff?!

"Of course the central thesis at the core of this facility deprivation design is that your pictures are lame because you spend too much time fiddling with your camera's nasty digital digital controls and looking at that new-fangled peep show screen on the back of cam as these days.

"Raise your hand (or open your wallet widely) if you really subscribe to this thesis. No, my hand is not up. In fact I'm thrilled that Leica recently converted to those new-fangled CMOS sensors, thus enabling live-view in that peep-show screen on my M-P (240)! It has eliminated the need for old-fangled special viewfinders for wide lenses.

"The Leica M-D was inevitable after the model 262 which kept, but severely censored, the camera's peep-show. It's a digital film camera. It's a camera designed around a strict fundamentalist philosophy of photography. If 'great' photographers of yore didn't need 'it' you shouldn't need 'it,' either.

"Leica is just about the only camera company on Earth that could, and does, indulge such deprivation whiffs*. My initial reaction is that the M-D is the most ridiculous such indulgence yet. But that's badly misguided. Leica has long realized that amateur photography among its clientele is 90% about the experience of photographing. As an admittedly weak analogy someone flying an Airbus A380 all day might feel more 'connected' flying something like an old 1930s Fokker on weekends. So for an earnest price, in this case six thousand dollars, Leica will give you that Fokker experience in the age of the Airbus. There's nothing wrong with that.

"Now if they follow-up with an M-D that limits you to just 36 shots per memory card...."

*[Not quite—Porsche sold a 911 that was lightened by taking lots of non-essential stuff out of it. For instance, removing the door handles and replacing them with leather straps. Of course, the lightened Porsche cost more.

Lightness does have a positive virtue in sports cars, and making one-offs can be more expensive because it departs from the main production run. —Ed.]

Stephen McCullough: "Well I like it. I rarely use the screen on my cameras. This has the controls I need and nothing more. Oh, and one small point: this Leica shoots DNG only. No JPEGs. Nice."

Gordon Cahill (partial comment): "Like the Monochrom, Leica have identified a tiny customer group that no one else caters for and made them a camera. Certainly it's a small group and the cost of entry is high, compared to some others. And a camera like the M-D won't make sense to many. But lots of people said Leica were crazy to make a camera that shoots only in black and white and yet here we are on the second version because the first was so successful. What Leica are becoming, once again (finally) is the camera company not afraid to take a risk."

Gaspar Heurtley: "I'm part of that 'bridge generation' between film and digital as a mainstream (I'm 34), so I've always had a film approach to photography. I shoot with an Olympus E-M5 full of features I couldn't care less about (went through the menu once, set it the way I like and never looked back) but I rarely look at the screen and I use buttons instead of the touchscreen. I always thought that Leicas where made just to show off (you know, 'look at me, I have a Leica'), but this is the first time they have something I really long for: pure simplicity. No other company is ever going to do something like that, unfortunately."

Ed Hawco (partial comment): "We're witnessing extremes. Most digital cameras have mind-boggling sets of options, beyond the point of distraction, but this Leica M-D is too far in the other direction."

Tuesday, 12 April 2016

With expensive but undeniably desirable gadgets that lose value quickly, it's worthwhile to spend a little thought to develop an adoption strategy so you don't waste your resources.

Three strategies:

Be an early adopter and buy new, but keep the camera only for a short time, say 6 to 18 months. Or two years at the most, especially if you're willing to keep an eye on the announcement and timing of replacement models. Why: this way, you always have the latest up-to-date camera, and with any luck you can sell the model you have before it's superseded. Your loss includes the early adopter "premium" (most digital cameras are at their most expensive right after introduction) to the possibly more discounted later-life price, plus the inevitable new-to-used depreciation, but you can often still get a good amount of your investment back out of the camera—more than half in many cases. This strategy makes sense for: people who enjoy trying out the latest thing and don't mind switching often, and who will put relatively a lot of use on their cameras within a relatively short time.

Buy new but up to a year after introduction, and keep your camera for a relatively long time, at least 3–5 years. Why: this allows early adopters to be the "beta testers" for the product, allows time for the camera to be thoroughly reviewed, and gives "the crowd" time to uncover nagging problems and issues—some of which might be fixed by the manufacturer—making your purchase more likely to be fully eyes-open and therefore safer. The downside is that there won't be much value in the camera after five years have gone by and you won't recover much of your investment selling it used. But by then you'll presumably have gotten so much use out of it that this won't matter very much. An additional advantage to this strategy: when you finally do buy a new camera, the improvements in its technology will probably be very real and quite noticeable. Makes sense for: people who are conservative about their purchases, like to get to know their equipment well, and are secure enough to use a camera that's a bit "yesterday's news."

Buy older models used or on closeout at the end of their lifecycle. Around the time camera models are replaced, early adopters are often selling examples that have received relatively little use, and dealers and discounters are clearing out slow-selling older stock. Bargains are to be had. And of course models that are two or three generations old are usually available on eBay or from other sources of used gear. Why: prices are often a fraction of what they were when the cameras were the latest thing. Right now, for example, the Fuji X-Pro2 interchangeable-lens RF-style camera is the latest thing, but it sells for $1,700. The X-Pro1, which also created a huge amount of excitement and inspired a lot of devotion among its fans when it was announced in early 2012 and also cost $1,700 new, now can be purchased new for $500. It's known to have "slow" focusing, but that's a relative thing—it's not that slow, and it's perfectly good for scenics and landscapes or deliberate portraiture—and you're saving $1,200. It's a nice body to use while starting a collection of lenses. This isn't the only example of course—a great many cameras reach a "low ebb" in pricing, and are sometimes spectacular bargains. Prices can be such a bargain that whatever value is left in it after your term of ownership amounts to a bonus. An additional advantage to this strategy: it's a way of inoculating yourself against impulsive purchases. You know you're not just getting your head turned by the latest shiny toy that everyone's excited about! This strategy makes sense for: people who like to spend as little as possible and like real bargains, but can resist the siren song of the latest thing.

So what I'd recommend is either buying early and getting out again quickly while the model is still current, or choosing carefully and deliberately and keeping the camera for a number of years. I personally think it's too hard to limit yourself to older, discontinued products purchased used—it's human nature to want the latest and best. But some people have the discipline to do that.

A fourth strategy might be:

4. Create a "photo budget" you're comfortable with and just "write off" that cost in your mind as the amount you pay every year for a pursuit you enjoy. I did that for many years in the decades between 1980 and 2000, first earmarking $3,000 annually for my no. 1 hobby and later, when my salary improved, $5,000, mainly paying for film and printing paper but also a revolving door of cameras and lenses. I didn't worry about getting that money back; it was what I was willing to pay to do something I loved, and I've never regretted a penny of those old budgets I spent. I got my money's worth. Doing what you enjoy in life can cost a few bucks, which is okay if it's within what you can afford.

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

JG: "Personally, I've employed all four of the strategies you outlined and in pretty much sequential order, too. I am now photographing with a pair of older cameras bought used, and most of my modest photo budget is used to buy paper and ink to make prints. (Most of which are then neatly stacked in stylish Pina Zangaro cases and stored under my bed, but I digress...)

"It has taken me quite a while and cost me a lot of money to reach this point, but I don't believe I could be any happier than I am today. It really is liberating to finally focus the majority of my attention on the photos I take and not the cameras that I take them with! 8^) "

Kusandha: "Thank you for suggesting option 4! I have mostly worked with option 2 in the past, but I like the sound of option 4 a lot more as a way to fight off GAS, enjoy this hobby of mine, and also be more financially responsible as I get older."

KW Leon: "My strategies:

1. Buy newI was sent to buy a camera for the office. So I picked up a Panasonic for a few hundred and spent a few thousand on an M8 for myself. Like sending an alcoholic to pick up the drinks for the office party.

2. Don't useLeft the M8 unopened, continued using the M6. Until the M9 came out and I got that too. At which point I finally decided it really was time to unbox the M8.

3. 1C/1L/many YI have 14 M lenses but the M8 has only ever had three lenses mounted on it. Once a lens goes on, it stays on for much longer than just one year. I have no issues with using a digital (!) camera that's ten-year-old news. The M9 is still NIB.

4. Buy in case they don't make them any moreE.g., FM3A (never used). 75mm Summilux, once I heard it was discontinued (did I ever use it?). Old 90mm Macro Kit when the new 90mm Macro Kit for the M240 was announced (better get it before it's gone; never used). Etc.

5. Sell nothingExcept for a Seagull TLR 30 years ago. Should have kept the camera; what was the $50 I got for it?"

Burple: "Following strategy 3, I recently purchased a refurbished Sony A77II with Sony 16–50mm ƒ/2.8 lens, with warranty, for $650. Selling the lens (which retails for $799) for $400. Thus, got myself a new a77II for...$250! If I sell my Sony A700 as well, I just upgraded for almost nothing."

Rodney Topor: "Your strategies seem to assume you stay in the same ecosystem. If you wish to change ecosystems, you also have to buy a new set of lenses to go with your new camera. OK, you can buy new or second hand lenses, but it's still expensive, and changes the thought processes and economics significantly."

Phil: "If you’re seriously considering costs as part of your camera use, it’s usually best to buy a high-end camera, one of the 'pro' models. These will hold more value over a longer usage span, the models aren’t turned over as quickly so they stay current and valuable longer, and they will be supported longer by the manufacturer. Also think of repair—if you break a cheaper camera, it may not be worth putting, say, $250 into a $500 camera, so you never get a chance to 'use it up' or resell it. The high-end camera may be the best buy no matter which strategy you use—it’ll hold a higher percentage of its price at resale after 1–2 years even if you buy early at top price, and it’ll last longer and still be worth keeping for many years or selling if you buy later after its price cut. Same goes for lenses. 'Kit' lenses are basically throwaways, but the popular high-end lenses hold their value very well, more so than camera bodies."

Moose (partial comment): "Strategy, smategy.

"My strategy in photography is to enjoy myself, not to minimize its expense.

"If one of my hobbies were scrimping, saving, making do, and so on, I might enjoy doing photography with greater emphasis on doing it on the cheap.

"But I don't derive joy from that. So I would do it if I had to, but I don't, for the gear I like. If I derived joy from high status stuff, and could afford it, perhaps I would be using Leica and other high $ gear. (They are making something other than rangefinders, now, no? I really dislike rangefinders.)

"But what really floats my boat is finding gear that I enjoy using, that fits, and that is capable of producing images that I enjoy having made and enjoy sharing with others.

"And, truth be told, I simply enjoy taking photographs. I'll see something I've shot many times before, and still derive pleasure out of really paying attention to it and shooting it again. Sheer waste of time, and perhaps a little $, but this is not an exercise in efficiency."

Bob: "📷😗Nice! How much?💰🤔It does so much more than my old 📷. 😕

I can afford to have 📷📷. 💰💰. 😬

😇 You don't need another 📷.

😈 Yes you do! Look at how pretty it is. Just think how much better your pictures would be with the new 📷.🌊🌷🌝⛰🌄🏜🌈🌇🏝🏯😈

😍😇 Don't do it!🖕😍😍🤑🤑💸💸💸💸

😍😍😎😎I got a new 📷🤗😍🤗🎉.

📷🐱📷🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱

🤔That was a lot of 💰to spend to 📷🐱. I don't need 📷📷.

I'll sell 📷🤑.

😐 No one wants my 📷😢

😰

What if no one buys it?😱😩😩😩😩

😀🤑🤑Sold!

☺️ <---- Current position in cycle.☺️ May☺️ June (maybe)

📷

🤔

🙄

😬"

Gerard Kingma: "You can do an automated find-and-replace 'camera' for 'car' in Word and it's still a valid article."

PaddyC: "The featured comments (and comments in general) for this post are some of the best I've read in a long time. Gerard Kingma's observation is wonderful. I love Bob's emoji post. Is that a first for TOP? I don't always read the comments. I give the single best sentence to Moose: 'Sheer waste of time, and perhaps a little $, but this is not an exercise in efficiency.' Had me truly cracking up. But best reply must go to KW Leon. I'm still chuckling at that one. Thanks to everyone who put a smile on my face this morning. TOP is great."

Friday, 08 April 2016

Seriously, you did well. Whoever was responsible for the conception of the GX8, promote that person. Whoever worked on the details of the UI, give that person or persons a bonus.

I acknowledge that I am not Mr. Typical Photographer, representative of the widest possible swath of the buying fan base. But I do have a fairly wide familiarity with a variety of cameras, having owned 11,358 different ones (I first typed 1,358, but then it occurred to me that maybe that wasn't enough of an exaggeration to make it clear that it's an exaggeration) and having tried out another, oh, ~4,000 more. (That's an exaggeration.)

I'm really liking the GX8. It's not pretty, and it's not diminutive in the way that usually charms the Japanese, but it sure is nice to hold and pleasant and easy to use. Ergonomics get an A+ from me so far. Still R-ing TFM though*.

Here they are at B&H Photo, which loaned me the equipment for the review. Note that GX8 bodies are currently on sale for $200 off.

Viewfinder über allesTo keep this post from being just a fluffle of opining:

A camera's viewfinder is all-important. It's what connects the camera to the world, in the most important way for the enterprise at hand, i.e., visually. A great viewfinder is a reason to buy one camera over another. It's what sold me on the Fuji X-T1, second only to Fuji's beautiful lens system.

(I should explain that I now prefer electronic viewfinders [EVF's] to optical viewfinders [OVF's]. Weighing the advantages and disadvantages of each, the EVF edges ahead for me.)

I directly compared the electronic viewfinders of the Panasonic GX8 and the Fuji X-T1, and the GX8 to the optical viewfinder of the Sony A900 DSLR, previously my gold standard (among the cameras I'm familiar with, so only 15,358 of them) for an OVF on a DSLR. The Fuji beats the Sony, as I've mentioned before (and the Sony beats the Nikon D750, as I've also mentioned before). The Fuji X-T1's viewfinder is one of that camera's strongest points, and it is indeed just a little bigger than the one in the GX8. But not much. The Fuji's seems a little more coarse to me, and not quite as color-correct. Big win for the Panasonic is with eye relief (this refers to how far back from the eyepiece your eye can be while still allowing you to see the whole frame). The Panasonic has great eye relief. I find it easy and pleasant to see the whole frame in the GX8 even with glasses on. With no glasses on it's A/B**.

So the GX8 is highly recommended to both left-eyed shooters and glasses-wearers.

I very much like the upper-left-hand position of the GX8's EVF, and I very much like the tilting feature, too, which I first learned I liked when reviewing the ill-fated Ricoh GXR a number of years ago. (Remember that one? With the interchangeable lens/sensor modules?)

I find this shooting position, with the finder at about 45°, very comfortable. Sort of midway between a studio and a snapshot camera. Reminds me of...

...Another camera with a 45-degree finder. (Rolleiflex 6008AF shown without lens.) Of course the GX8's VF adjusts effortlessly to all positions from straight up to straight back.

The GX8's tilting finder is in essence an answer to the grizzly Photo Dawgs who ask where interchangeable finders went, such as those on the Nikon F3, Pentax LX, and Canon New F-1. Well, it's now all-in-one, can't be lost, doesn't cost extra, and comes built-in on the Panasonic GX8.

There's even a larger accessory eyecup to eliminate extraneous light when you're shooting outdoors. I'm very curious about how the VF will do in bright sunlight, but this morning it's gray, wet, and snowing again. We've had more Winter in April than we've had all Winter; Winter took all Winter to get here. I'll let you know about the VF in bright sunlight once the sun comes out.

Anyway, just because the VF on the GX8 tilts, don't think it isn't a world-class VF. It's clean, clear, easy to see, and yes, pleasant to spend time looking at. A nice interface with the visual world. (And kind of a contrast, when you think of it, in innovation and implementation, to the traditional "faux prism humps" on the X-T1 and the OM-D's.)

It's an excellent viewfinder, both in an absolute sense, and comparatively.

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

I finally decided I could afford this book, and orderedit two days ago. Can't wait!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Steve G: " I completely agree that a tilting viewfinder is a boon, not a gimmick. When I first got my Ricoh GX100—and there are still more gallery shots in my portfolio from that camera than any other—I thought the tilting EVF (maybe a first for Ricoh? I don't know) was just a marketing frippery. I soon found myself using it a lot, and it became a big part of why I loved that camera so much."

Mike replies: Yes, I do think this should be emphasized. Using tilting finders has convinced me. I think it's a serious and desirable feature, and this is the best implementation of it I've used yet.

Of course, I haven't actually used 15,358 cameras—in fact I probably use fewer cameras that most reviewers do. I'm sure Luke at Imaging-Resource, for example (he reads TOP) is familiar with many more VF's than I am.

James Clarke: "I am interested how you find the exposure compensation dial. Having not used the GX8 (still using the GX1) I'm inclined to agree with this take on the ergonomics."

Mike replies: Wow, I completely disagree with that assessment. The EC dial, which by habit I use a lot (I know it's something some people don't use, but I do), is one of the best things about the GX8. You just raise your thumb and forefinger and there it is, right to hand in the perfect place. I can set it easily—I mean very comfortably, no stretch, no fuss—while holding the camera one-handed!

beuler: "I first tried a tilting VF on the Konica Minolta Dimage A2. I miss the feature and wonder why it has not replaced the faux prism hump as design standard. I find a tilting EVF more versatile and useful than a tilting rear screen."

Monday, 04 April 2016

Thanks to my friend at B&H Photo in NYC, I have a Panasonic GX8 (currently on sale for $200 off) and Lumix 12–35mm ƒ/2.8 constant-aperture zoom (currently on sale for $300 off) here for tryin' out. [Note: The 14–140mm is shown in the illustration. —Ed.]

First impressions, in the order they impressed me:

Not a small camera, it is however very right-sized: although decently portable, it's obviously made to be handled. I think this is the right direction for Panasonic to go with its flagship mirrorless. It strikes me as just about exactly the size (well, if you subtract the handgrip) of a traditional film Leica rangefinder, but appreciably lighter. Its balance of weight to size (density) is very nice.

Really, really like the design and ergonomics. Haven't worked out all the function buttons yet, but the touchscreen is good for basic controls and I love the flip-up viewfinder; and the viewfinder itself is large and clean; and I love the deep handgrip, which makes it easy to carry the camera one-handed with a wrist strap. You're not going to believe you're hearing me say so, but I actually wish it were a little taller...a little more to get my right hand on wouldn't go amiss. And by the way, the tilt-up viewfinder is great for left-eyed shooters (like me). You'll never touch the touchscreen with your nose on this camera. Just tilt it up to a 45° angle and Smokie's yer uncle.

Not a toy, a tool. Doesn't strike me as a tasty little toy to get excited about in a gearheady way, and set on your desk to stare at all moony-eyed when you're not using it. (Who, moi? Not me. Never done that. My spokesperson is issuing a categorical denial.) More like a well-made chunk of business for taking pictures. It just has this sort of dish-it-up-and-we'll-git-'er-done vibe.

Love the noises and the razor-sharp shutter-button feel.

Shaddup!Now, I always hate it when reviewers go off with a big rant about something that's wrong, putting way too much emphasis on it, especially if it's something that might just be wrong with their particular camera. But on this body, the battery/card door doesn't open. The spring that's supposed to sproing open the little door is not powerful enough to actually open it when you unlatch it. So I unlatch it, and then I have to pick at it with my fingernail to get it open.

This puts me in mind of "reviewer's disease." Burt Keppler, the late, great longtime publishing director of Popular Photography magazine, biggest in the United States for many years, once wrote an article about an imaginary camera that combined all the individual features he liked best from many different cameras. He noted (if memory serves...) that he might have been better off if he hadn't used so many cameras over the years. All of them collectively had spoiled him for any particular one.

The irony here is that Panasonic already had this feature perfected...on the GF1. That camera's battery/card door was just right. Panasonic has regressed...on this small but important aspect of the UI. Can't I please have that feature on this camera? No? Bah.

Or...?Poking around the internet for a picture, I came across a link that asked, "12–35mm or 20mm ƒ/1.7II?" To which my immediate thought is, no, no—not or. And. I've long been a fan of having a zoom and also a much smaller lens of a focal length from the middle of the zoom's range somewhere. It's perfect. The big zoom for when you're concentrating solely on photography, the little pancake for when you're doing something else and just have the camera with you "in case."

I first wrote about that with the Zeiss Contax 35–70mm ƒ/3.4 Vario-Sonnar, a lovely lens, and the Zeiss Contax 45mm ƒ/2.8 "eagle eye," the pancake Tessar. That's how long I've been touting that idea to deaf ears*. But really, the answer to "12–35mm or 20mm ƒ/1.7II?" is a resounding "BOTH!"

*Anybody know when those two Contax lenses were introduced? My books are in boxes.

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Andy Kochanowski: "Your comment about this being a tool and not a toy strikes me as a fair one. I can't help thinking that the mirrorless industry has been pitching us cameras more on image than on accomplishment for a few years now, and I'm just a bit sick of it. I suppose I'm the target audience for all these Fujis and Olympuses, as I remember using an OM-4Ti and even a Texas Leica, and heck I'm exactly the bull's eye Leica target audience, an amateur with a professional degree. But all the retro and metal controls and faux rangefinder styling just don't matter when they're just an excuse to pitch a price point.

"There are only two things that truly matter to get a good 35mm-like digital photo: the sensor and the focus system. With the PDAF built into their chips, Sony has the goods on everybody else in this game. If you've seen the output of their basic 24MP chip , at the price you can buy it for on their APC bodies, it is simply better, nicer, more pleasing, better DR, better high ISO. And the cameras focus instantly. Not kind of fast, not really fast, but instantly.

"You know what I'm trying to say. I hope you enjoy the GX8. I like the way it looks, it's not trying too hard, and it will no doubt work well. I thing Panasonic has put out some great stuff over the years. Some of my best work was done with a GX1 some years ago. But I think M4/3 is another more-or-less dead end, like the Leica M system but at a different price."

davidabi: "Hey, Mike if you want get spendy...the 35–100mm ƒ/2.8 is also on sale ;-) ...'after recent $400 markdown from $1,297.99'"

Nigel: "Really, the answer is the 35–100 zoom. The 12–35mm is very good, but the 35–100mm is outstanding."

Mike Peters: "Take your time with the ergonomics and getting to know the menus, and if you have any questions about this or that, feel free to email me. I've been using two of them for all of my still work for the past few months. The GH4's, each with over 150K shutter actuations, now are reserved for video only. The chip in the GX8 is better at higher ISOs, and everything else is the same.

"It works for sports, dance, events, portraits, or whatever else you can toss at it. I love mine. And the tilting finder lets me view at a somewhat lower angle, like the 45° finder on my late great Hasselblads. If you want to see any examples, or need a tip or two on how to process the raws, I'll be happy to share. This link will bring you to a recent favorite...."

Friday, 18 March 2016

Harrumph. Two members of the TOP "family"—is it too much of a stretch to call it that?—the TOP fellowship, if you will—bought new cameras, and both wrote to tell me all about it, and neither one included a picture. Wah!

Ctein spent some of his Saturn Run royalties and bought a brand new Olympus OM-D E-M5II. John Lehet sold two Porsches and bought a Sony A7rII. (No, he doesn't actually have any Porsches. He's an art photographer....)

Just for some idle Saturday fun—show us your new camera! Points for a good (or creative, or different, or beautifully made) picture, but a quick (Facebook-worthy) snapshot is okay too.

To embed a picture in the comments, use this code (this is a screenshot, to prevent it from being garbled in transmission):

...Where http://image.jpg is a picture on the Web no more that 470 pixels wide. Sorry, there's no way to upload a picture directly from your computer to the TOP Comment Section.

Or, you can post a link!

If you don't have a new camera and you'd still like to play, then show us your oldest camera if you have any old ones. I'm hoping John and Ctein will send portraits of their new ones, but if they don't, maybe Carl and Oren (and Herman K., and Jim Hughes, and several others I can think of) will show us their oldest ones.

I'll kick it off. I haven't bought a new camera in a while, and you've seen my oldest camera before, but I'll show it to you again:

It's a Rochester Optical Co. Pony Premo No. 6 whole-plate "self-casing" camera built between 1903 and 1906, and I am inordinately fond of it. It's a survivor, in spectacular condition for its age. It resides in the "front hall," meaning, the southern side of my little living room between the front door and the foot of the stairs.

So c'mon, what did ya get!

Mike

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Earl Dunbar: "The OM-1 may not be my oldest camera, but it enjoyed the day and the visit.

"iPhone 4s, so not great dynamic range."

Doug Chadwick: "My prettiest camera looked very much like your Pony Premo, and might well have been a close relative. The front of it was a Century Grand Senior, and it had a Century #8 Cirkut "Attachment" on the back. And of course it had the 12" cog-wheel head and legs. And it had a little tag on the front standard to remind you to set the front standard to the center before closing the camera. A hang tag. And it had all the little booklets and sales brochures that convinced the first owner to take the plunge.

"He took the plunge in 1906 and kept a faithful log of the exposures he made with the apparatus, in yet another provided booklet, but it just amounted to about 6 photographs. I got one negative and one print out of that set. Both Central Park circa 1906.

"It was, and is, about as 'mint' condition as anyone will find. I would guess that is is the best early Cirkut extant. It recently sold at auction for a respectable price. I have not bothered to get in contact with the new owner. I didn't own it for a long time and the rest of the ownership chain are well enough known. I was an insignificant custodian for something like 10 years. I got it on television once, good enough.

"I am not a collector, and that's what a camera like that needs.

"Oh, and it had a really good lens. Probably the most 'important' looking lens I have ever seen. It was a hugely expensive optional upgrade in 1906. A Zeiss triple convertible Protar. I have never looked at a lens that just from its very appearance conferred such quality. It cost, at the time, as much as the house where I was living. It kind of took my breath away. I never exposed film with it.

"We are impressed these days with the traditional engraved lettering filled with paint on lenses. This was not good enough for Zeiss in 1906. The 'engraving' was raised writing done with some sort of electrical welding. Or something like that. I am sure the experts know something about how it was done. Very exceptional.

"But there was something about the look of the glass, and its 'natural' coating that just stood out from anything I have owned or seen before or since. Some sort of brilliance or clarity, I am not sure what.

"I am still quite sure that lens is capable of something really special.

"I am equally sure it will never be used to expose film and prove what it can do."

David Miller: "You swine, Johnston! I have no photograph of my newest camera because, after rising to the top of the wait-list at my local camera store yesterday, I finally got my hands on a Fuji X-Pro2. However, after an hour playing with it, I reluctantly concluded that—beautiful though it is—the Fuji X-Pro2 is not the right camera for me. For now. I think…I could have done without having salt rubbed in the wounds of my disappointment. By way of asserting my independence, I bought the Fuji XF 90mm lens whose usefulness you disparaged in a recent well-reasoned post. There—I can think for myself! (Buying a three-wheeler Morgan would have been even better….)"

Mike replies: And buying an electric three-wheeler Morgan would have been even better still.

Monday, 14 March 2016

Michael Walsh suggested a couple of days ago that the new Olympus Pen F (sold out all over the place, by the way) might not be modeled entirely on the original Pen F. He said it reminds him more of the Leica IIIf.

Allyn Saroyan owns both, so he sent us a couple of pictures of the two together:

(By the way, if, like me, you thought you were terminally confused by Olympus's apparently inscrutable camera-naming system—the E-P5, for instance, is the fourth camera in the E-P[x] range—do they make a decoder ring?—the Wikipedia page for the E-P5 has a nice chart which breaks it all down and actually makes sense of it. I was surprised to learn such a thing was possible.

Somebody in charge at Olympus sure likes complexity, is all I can say. Its cameras, with their florid proliferation of intricate controls, are almost anti-Jobsian in their lack of essential simplicity. Has dpreview ever felt inspired to publish a setup demystification guide for any other camera like they did when the OM-D E-M5 came out? You should be a tech whiz to shoot Olympus, at least the higher level ones.)

Mike(Thanks to Allyn)

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Stephen Scharf: "The Japanese seem to have a penchant for creating products with model names that appear to be a random mix of letters and numbers. If you think cameras are bad, Japanese sport bikes are worse: CBR600RR, GSXR750R, VFR800FI, VFR400RR, CBR600F4i, etc. Like the Geico commercial says, 'Its what they do....'"

Sophia: "Can't be less of a tech whiz than me (think middle age woman whose kids set up my iPhone and other technical devices). And I have no problem with Olympus. It's becoming an internet trope to bash the Olympus menus. You only use the menus to set the camera initially and it isn't so hard to just run through the options and select what you want. After that you can use the control panel, dials/function buttons, and/or the live view information to adjust whatever you want to adjust as needed. You get to decide which way you want to work, so if being customizable means the camera is too complex, so be it."

Friday, 11 March 2016

Just wondering if any Panasonic GX8 users have reports about the effectiveness of the Panasonic Dual Image Stabilization in the GX8 with properly modified lenses?

If you haven't heard of Dual I.S. [sic—Panasonic uses the periods], Panasonic claims to have perfected a method of combining the effects of in-body IS with in-lens IS.

The best breakdown of the feature's capabilities I've found so far occur in an excellent review of the GX8 by Richard Wong. The graphs about Dual I.S. start about halfway down.

In passing, let me note that it's difficult to write a really good review of a camera. The tendency is to vapor on with vapid banalities or else to create a turgid list of all the features and specs such that the review has about the same entertainment value as reading a manual. I've noticed a tendency in recent years—I think it started with Steve's Digicams—of expanding the "conclusion" section into almost a standalone mini-review in and of itself. If research shows that most readers skip to the conclusion anyway, then that seems to make sense. Although one slight oddity that then arises is that conclusions have to have conclusions. :-)

Sometimes the best reviews are amateur reviews. It requires a certain amount of passion and enthusiasm towards a camera on the part of the writer just to have the energy and diligence to do all the work to create a proper review...otherwise it's just too much of a grind. It looks like Richard did due diligence in his review of the GX8—it's nicely done. Kudos.

Years ago I ran across a very nicely-done review of the Leica M6. (Where was it, Photo.net maybe?) When I read it I thought, damn, I would have published that in the magazine. It was written by a guy from Texas I'd never heard of but whose name you might know—one Kirk Tuck.

Richard Wong's data abut the GX7's IBIS match my experience—good for a stop or a stop and a half maybe, or, in other words, not very good. His review implies that Dual I.S. in the GX8 is about as good as, and possibly a little better than, the IBIS in the OM-D E-M5 Mark II, by general consensus currently the gold standard in IBIS across brands and formats. If so, then it marks a giant step forward for Panasonic in that regard. Just wondering if any of our readers have opinions about that from real-world use.

I like Panasonic, having owned a GF1, GX1, and GX7. The latter two didn't break into the heavy use category for me, through no fault of their own, but the GF1 was one of my two most-used digital cameras since I first went digital 13 years ago. The other being my beloved Konica-Minolta 7D of sainted memory. I've asked for a GX8 to review. (I'm still in the queue for an Epson P600 review unit but have no other reviews on the horizon except one for a camera bag.)

One last comment about the GX8: seems to me that Panasonic has solved the riddle of size. I found the GX1 to be just too small for comfort for me, and although I know a great many people absolutely love the Fuji X100 and I certainly don't argue with them, I find that to be too small and fiddly too. (I wonder about the Pen F, pretty as it indisputably is.) Speaking of the M6, I remember a comment made by Andrew Matheson eons ago in his book Leica M6 to M1: Rangefinder Practice. The Leica, he said, "is a camera you can get to grips with." The GX8 seems to be a camera you can get to grips with.

Again, any users want to comment on that? I held a GX8 on a tether in New York, but I haven't shot with one.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Michael Walsh: "Regarding camera size—am sitting here with a brand new, just arrived Pen F. I was very worried it might be too small, but having played with it for a few hours it feels just right. One thing though—everyone says 'modelled on the original Pen F,' but have to say it far more reminds me of my (very) old Leica IIIf ! Anyway, a lovely camera and I am (in Yorkshire-speak) chuffed."

Mike Peters: "The GX8 is so far the most satisfying digital still camera that I've shot with. I'm not a small or huge person, six feet, and it fits my hands perfectly.

"The GX7 was far too small, but I liked the tilting viewfinder and touch screen, but missed the articulation of the rear screen. Plus the battery was too wimpy. The GX8 uses the GH2 and FZ1000 battery, and so far at events I have put over 1200 shots on one and not killed it.

"The still image quality is a cut above the last generation of 16-MP chips, and it's very usable with judicious processing at ISO's over 3200, up to 12,800 in a pinch.

"The IS is a bit of an unknown to me. I don't use many stabilized lenses. My main zooms are the Olympus 12–40mm and 40–150mm 2.8's. What I can say is that I can shoot at 150mm at 1/60th with confidence. That being said, I've also shot with confidence at 1/125th without IS for a long time before the GX8.

"The other lenses I use are the fully manual Voigtlander ƒ/0.95's and a full complement of Panasonic and Olympus primes, only one of which, the 42.5mm ƒ/1.7, is stabilized in the lens. And when I shoot video, I rely on a 3D gimbal for stabilization.

"I have two GX8's for all of my still work, and two GH4's for my video work, and previously owned GH2, GH3 and GX7 cameras. I've always found the Olympus bodies too small, and the same for the batteries. And once you get used to moving focus points with your thumb on the rear screen while peering through the viewfinder, there's no going without it.

"Last, but not at all least, being a right-eyed user with a big nose and glasses, having the viewfinder on the left edge of the body allows me to peer into it straight on, as opposed to looking through the very top of my glasses. It's a big help, trust me.

"All in all, it's a very well designed tool for making photographs, and once you get used to the layout, it will disappear in your hands."

Massimiliano Marchetti: "I believe most camera reviews have usually a fatal flaw: they are very detailed and useful but are based mostly on first impressions. Especially with the current level of complexity of digital cameras, I do not believe spending a few days or a couple of weeks with a camera is enough to get a proper experience and understanding of it. That is why, in my opinion we often see a lot of focus on the camera features while at the same time the review misses to drill down how and if these features visibly improve the shooting envelope."

Mike replies: Back in my idealist and impoverished youth, reviewing cameras for magazines, my personal standard was that I had to use a camera for three months, including for real work, before I'd write about it. That's impractical now, of course, but you're right that too many review go too far in the opposite direction.

Edward Taylor: "I have a GX8 that I originally bought as a 4K b-roll camera to use for video along side my GH4. But I loved the camera so much that now I use it for stills and video, and find its ergonomics to be great. Image stabilization is amazing. I have pretty stable hands, but there is a real difference of at least 2–3 stops when using the GX8. Try this camera, and I think you will have a hard time putting it down. It is solid, weather resistant, and has all the bells and whistles and does everything well. I, too, used the GF1 and loved it, but this camera blows it away. I have a lot of nice cameras to choose from, but now, the GX8 always seems to be the one I grab on my way out the door."

Wednesday, 24 February 2016

Sigma has dropped the curtain on a dazzling surprise. The audience gasps! Applause swells and fills the room!

First of all, if you think Pentax is the wallflower at the DSLR party, consider Sigma. It owns the rights to an inherently superior sensor architecture, but, because it's proprietary, it's been stuck with developing it alone. My belief is that if the Foveon technology had been "open source" and available to all companies to develop competitively, it would be perfected far beyond where Sigma has been able to take it alone, and it would be in 98% of all cameras by now. If not 100%.

As it is, it's pretty amazing. The technically most impressive digital images I've ever seen were taken with Sigma cameras. The Foveon sensor has a beauty and an innate integrity that is unique. With intensive development from huge multinational electronics giants working competitively, the Bayer array sensor has come a very long way. It's still inherently a rather primitive kludge, analogous to tricolor cameras from the early days of color photography, which made original "color separations" on three sheets of B&W film in-camera...never mind that the color sensitivity of B&W film itself wasn't truly panchromatic! Analogously, Foveon is Kodachrome.

But consider the poor SD1, Sigma's first and nearly only DSLR [UPDATE: This isn't quite right. See Jim Kofron's Featured Comment below for more accurate information. —Ed.]. It was introduced in 2010 for a price of nearly $10,000...which probably sensibly reflected the development cost. It had a Sigma lensmount. With pixel count not an accurate metric of image quality, it came to be widely believed that the company's "pixel count equivalent" was a bit of a fudge, if not a con. Sigma couldn't win for losing. And its very rarity meant that most people couldn't see the pictures.

So along came the very strange digicams—cameras that took the form of fixed-lens point-and-shoots, but required the care of shooting with medium format to achieve the image quality of which they were capable. Add awkward proprietary software, and you had truly quirky outlier cameras that were not only out of the mainstream but very far from it. And at that, you had to buy separate cameras to get different lenses, as with 1960s Rolleiflexes. Weird. Quirky. But that sensor—wonderful.

Enter the sd QuattrosSo what's happened now? Sigma has put its best Foveon X3 Quattro Direct sensor into an interchangeable-lens mirrorless body somewhat similar to the Leica SL. The sd [sic] Quattro and sd Quattro H differ only in the size of their sensors: APS-C (1.5X crop factor) for the former and APS-H for the latter. Remember APS-H from the Canon EOS-1D and the Leica M8? Sigma's is 26.6×17.9mm (1.0 inch×0.7 inch), with a 1.2X crop factor, and, as for pixels...well, it's complicated. In three layers, the top layer is 6,200×4,152, the middle and bottom layers are 3,348×2,232. Sigma estimates the quality to be about equivalent to a 45-MP Bayer array, but that's disingenuous because it's not equivalent. It's better.

As far as the details are concerned, I'm not going to get into that here. The cameras are in development—there's no ship date and no hint as to pricing yet. Here are the spec sheets if you want to delve into them.

Suffice to say that if you love Sigma Foveon quality—they have a small but devoted (dare I say cultish?) fan base—that game just changed.

This one's going to be fun to watch.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Chris Fuller: "I had a Sigma DP2 Merrill and the images were astounding, if you knew how to use it correctly. I loved their look. However, ultimately the slow software and the camera's very limited use for certain types of photography did not match my goals, so I sold it. Still think of that camera, though, with great fondness."

Jim Kofron: "Hi Mike, The SD1 was the first and only DSLR to use the 'Merrill' version of the Foveon sensor. The very first DSLR was the SD9 (first Foveon sensor, sans microlenses), followed by the SD10, SD14, and SD15. I've owned the last three (and have a DP3 Merrill). It's been a while since I've had a new Sigma (I skipped the SD1), and I'm looking forward to these new cameras (I'll probably spring for the H). I assume that this will also mean that I'll be springing for some new glass too...

"The game has changed. Hopefully the EVF and focusing have improved the operational characteristics. The QS menu system on the Merrills and Quattros are actually quite nice—the camera will get out of your way when you want to shoot. Having said that, I've had a hard time really embracing my DP3 (which creates marvelous images) because I really like to look through a viewfinder. And yes, I know that you can add one to the top, but...."

Geoff Wittig: "I will confess to never handling one. However, my understanding is that Sigma's Foveon sensor cameras have been hamstrung by a combination of sluggish electronics and kludgey raw processing software, rendering them marginally usable in the real world, despite the immense potential of their sensor architecture. Hopefully Sigma are devoting sufficient resources to the supporting electronics and software so the undoubted virtues of the sensor are available in a usable form.

"We're so spoiled by the remarkable speed and responsiveness of modern cameras that sluggish, balky devices are immediately kicked to the curb. I recently pulled out my old EOS-1Ds (circa 2002) and took a few shots. At its introduction it was considered much more usable and responsive than Kodak's competing 14-MP DCS Pro SLR, but today it feels like it's set in cement. You take a shot and count ('One-one thousand, two-one thousand'...) for several seconds before the preview image comes up on the LCD. It's excruciating!"

Massimiliano Marchetti: "I am an happy user of the three Merrills and one has to see the prints to really realize the quality and unique signature of the Foveon sensor. This is a surprising and very welcomed announcement from Sigma; waiting to see how they will improve upon the existing models and fix some of the issues of the Quattro series sensors. One thing for sure they need to improve is the Sigma Photo Pro software that is still incomplete and slow even if it usable with some pain and patience."

Kenneth Tanaka (partial comment): "My own history with Sigma's Foveon cameras has arced over the years. My first encounter was with the original DP camera (which I reviewed here in 2009?) was a horror. I had never encountered a gadget that provoked me so close to mayhem. But some of the image files were wonderful. Fast forwarding a few years I bought the DPx Merrill cameras. Better design, or at least more tolerable. Last year I decided to spend dedicated time seeing what these guys could really do for me. After only a couple of weeks using the DP Merrills exclusively (I felt like Alfred Eisenstadt) I ended up with two outstanding sets of images, two of which have become among my all-time favorites. One is superb a street collage and the other is a rather surreal park/construction scene. Of course you cannot possibly discern the distinctive qualities of these images on a web site; you must see them printed large. But you can get a sense of their extraordinary detail from this tiny section of that park scene. You can nearly tell what these guys had for lunch! (By the way, I shot both of those as in-camera JPEGs.)

"Is this new Sigma in my future? Probably not, as I'm trimming kit and becoming more selective in my needs. But those of you who are curious about the legendary Foveon sensor it may soon be an excellent time to buy a used DPx Merrill to see for yourself.

"Your Sigma DPx Merrill Fun Fact! The Sigma DPx Merrill battery (a Sigma BP-41) is the same as Ricoh's DB-65 battery, used in their GR and GR II cameras!"

Al C.: "The DP Merrills are, in both absolute and relative (to peers) terms, the most amazing product of any kind I have ever owned. You nailed it: it has that Kodachrome glow, that ineffable transparency of light captured live. But then it may even be better in B&W, with that purity, bite and texture of 'narrative' which only the best of B&W can convey. Sure, I have to wait 15 seconds to chimp a shot. So? Sure, SPP takes five seconds to process a raw image. But my jaw hits the table every time the finished image locks in on screen.

"For the audiophiles among you, the analogy which comes to mind is that Bayer is solid state and Foveon is tube.

"In 2002 I was speaking with a pre-eminent, old-timer Sand Hill Road venture capitalist. I asked him which of his portfolio companies he believes will be a breakthrough homerun, knowing he's had quite a few of those. Without thinking, he said Dick Merrill's Foveon. He said it will revolutionize digital image capture. He was wrong. And he was right. If only...."

Tuesday, 23 February 2016

Canon and Nikon have long been like Toyota and Honda, the same but different, different but similar.

Lo and behold, though, they've diverged! To appearances, anyway.

Canon EOS 80D: familiar looks, familiar goodness

CanonWhat we have here might be only lack of synchrony in the announcement schedule, but still. Canon has introduced the EOS 80D, the latest in a long and distinguished line of its pro-am* APS-C DSLRs. We're sort of to that point where we're improving the electronic-device capabilities of cameras—everybody's got to have the latest connectivity features and video, for example. Cameras are little computers, and woe betide the maker who misses a trick. But of course anyone shopping for their next DSLR wants whatever they buy to be up to date in all ways, so these regular refreshes are a service. The 80D features a new 45-point AF system and a 24-MP sensor. You can count on this being a highly developed product, as it's the Camry/Accord of the Canon lineup, and Canon is one of the top makers of DSLRs, and this line of products has been through many generations of continual refinement.

Canon also introduced the PZ-E1, "the world’s first detachable zoom adapter that provides silent and smooth zoom and can [be] adjusted incrementally to 10 different levels of zoom speed" for video zoom.

Tiny, premium Nikon DL18-50 looks the business

NikonNikon, meanwhile, has sailed up alongside Sony's popular and highly profitable RX100 series and fired a full broadside. It introduced the "DL cluster," a range of three 1" compacts. There's the Nikon DL18-50 ($847), Nikon DL24-85 ($647), and Nikon DL24-500 ($997). They differ mainly in their fixed lenses, hence the names. (The focal lengths in the names are 35mm-equivalent, notice.) The DL24-500 has a much great zoom range but is a much slower lens in terms of maximum aperture, and has a different form factor from the other two despite sharing similar internals. You can pick which angle-of-view range you want based on the kind of photography you do.

I like the names, by the way. They seem strange at first but they make sense and I'll bet we get used to them quickly.

Shootouts with the highly popular Sony RX100 IV should be forthcoming on the high seas. Should be interesting, although these are perilously close to cameras for people who don't read comparison reviews.

Despite being one of the great names in the business, Nikon has a noticeably spotty history with consumer cameras. Most of its offerings all the way back to the point-and-shoot revolution of the 1980s have been afterthoughts or OEMs or also-rans. (Even when they're very good like the would-be GR-killer Coolpix A that we liked.) Not since the 35Ti—a "premium point-and-shoot" from the film era—has Nikon really scored a true direct hit—and that was inspired by the competition too (the Contax T2). Unless I'm forgetting an exception. People like some of its tries—a fair number of people have come around to liking the Nikon 1 series, for example—but it seldom manages to lead (or dominate) at the lower end.

But anything Canon or Nikon does is interesting, if only because Canon or Nikon did it. And the market will likely be moving in the direction of 1" sensors as sensible smartphone camera competitors. I suspect the tide is on Nikon's side in this one.

Mike

*I detest the term "prosumer." Ugh.

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Jim Tardio: "The Nikon DL18-50 looks to be a street and travel photographers dream...that's really the perfect range for that type of shooting."

Michael Perini: "I don't think they have diverged very much , just a little out of sync—Canon did their 1" offerings a month or two ago. G7x, G5x, G9x. Nikon did the D500 but not the next D7200 (I think). Nikon has had the 1 series, and these new ones are basically the 1 series with fixed zooms. I thought the DL18-50 was a neat idea until I realized that they have gone with a big accessory EVF—I thought we'd seen the last of those—especially when you consider how elegantly Sony integrated theirs."

Thursday, 18 February 2016

In case you don't know, in the camera world, Pentaxians are a breed apart. They're moderate, mild, friendly, dripping with decency, thoughtful, considerate, intelligent and tolerant.

You know—like Canadians.

They're also quietly long-suffering, and long since resigned to being second fiddle.

You burst on the scene already a legend*

Yesterday, though, they had a moment—a shining, triumphal moment, like the British in the 2012 Games**. Pentax, now owned by Ricoh (itself reticent but overachieving), introduced its first full-frame camera, simply called the Pentax K-1. (Love that. Simple. Sweet. Short. Sensible.) The letter "K" has been identified with Pentax since it called its first bayonet mount the K-mount, when it changed over from M42 screwmount. That happened during the reign of Charlemagne over the Franks, approximately. "1" means, well, 1. The tip, the top. First in line.

We knew the "full-frame Pentax" was coming. It had been leaked a time or two. What we didn't know was that it was going to be a D810 killer! The same number of pixels. A bit smaller, but actually a little heavier.

It also has: full 5-axis in-body image stabilization (take that, Canikon). A battery big enough to last and last. A unique articulated viewing screen that doesn't just flip up but can also be angled, but without getting out of line with the optical axis. Wi-fi. No anti-aliasing filter. It has Pentax's pixel-shift for still lifes, for full color information at every pixel location. Dual card slots. And little assist LEDs that helpfully light the way for when you have to futz with the camera in the dark.

It's weatherproof, dustproof, and works in the cold. And has 14-bit raw. And here's the best part: at $1,799, it's a big bargain.

Compare to the trifling, no-IBIS-having, ratty fixed-viewing-screen D810 at a cool GRAND more.

The body style reminds me of a Land Rover. Tough, macho and ready for anything, with a beefy grip to hang on to. Clearly it take cues from the K-5 and its descendants, as well as providing echoes of Pentaxes past. Pentax knows how to design camera bodies, arguably above all other makers. Its best are a cut above.

As an aside, this made me smile:

Someone on the design team had a little fun with that. Pentax has been using this little design cue in one form or another since the fabled Spotmatics, and maybe earlier.

And—at last!—that lovely, luscious set of Limited lenses are restored to their intended, totally quirky focal lengths. The three are the 31mm Limited, the 43mm Limited, and the 77mm Limited. (My friend Oren refers to these nonstandard specs as "Pentax numerology.") Older K-mount lenses can also be mounted to the K-1.

...Of course, Pentax now has the most hodgepodge lens lineup of any maker anywhere in the world, since it's been making lenses for multiple formats since Andrew Jackson was President and concentrating on APS-C lenses since the Administration of Woodrow Wilson. (Note: these are exaggerations. That thing about Charlemagne, too.) Sure to delight shoppers is the totally awkward fact that some of the APS-C lenses will a) fit on the K-1 and b) cover full frame at certain apertures or focal lengths but not others. This will give rise to delightfully arcane arguments among people who like to construct equipment kits on paper with no thought whatsoever to practicality in the real world. (All APS-C lenses work in crop mode, however, and crop mode can be set for any lens.) At least you can see what the lenses do—there's a real glass pentaprism with near-100% coverage that promises good magnification and eye relief.

And the vertical grip is removable.

There are two new dedicated lenses, a 15–30mm ƒ/2.8 and a 28–105mm ƒ/3.5–5.6. Pentax says there will be more. (Note TOP's ongoing advice, however: make sure the lenses you need are available before you buy any camera. Promises don't take pictures.)

While it's unlikely to be the biggest, baddest, fastest or most professional FF out there, the K-1 seems squarely targeted to be one thing: the perfect enthusiast full-frame body for dedicated diehard Pentaxians. Seems to me like it's just exactly tailored to what they'd most want, like, and appreciate.

Let their fun begin.

Mike

P.S. Oh, and how very considerate of Pentax to build the perfect body for the Sigma Art 35mm ƒ/1.4 I wrote about just the other day. (Thanks to John Krumm for pointing this out.)

*Joan Baez singing about Bob Dylan

**As hosts in 2012, Great Britain had its best Olympics since 1908.

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Trecento: "Congratulations, Pentaxians! I'm very happy for you! (It really feels like a good friend has just had a much-longed-for child, after many years of disappointments that had made even bringing up the topic painful. Good show.)"

Glenn Brown: "Thank you very much. —Glenn Brown, Canadian :-) "

Ned Bunnell: "The first three lenses I'd love to try with the K-1 would be the 'three amigos,' a.k.a. the FA* Limited 31mm, 77mm and 43mm (the order in which I'd shoot with them)."

[Ed. Note: As I've mentioned before, friend Ned is the former President of Pentax USA.]

Mike replies: Those are three different things. Asahi Optical Corporation was the name of the Japanese company before it changed its name to Pentax Corporation in 2002 (Pentax had previously been a brand name). Honeywell was just the U.S. distributor from the 1950s to the '70s. Ricoh is a larger company historically known for making copiers that bought the cameramaking assets of Pentax from its previous owner, Hoya. Hoya is a Japanese glassmaking company that bought Pentax in 2006. Hoya was mainly interested in the medical divisions, which it still retains. Ricoh was interested in the interchangeable-lens camera assets, and that's what it bought from Hoya—similar to the way Sony bought the cameramaking assets of Minolta, except that Sony considered its own name to be stronger in the market whereas Ricoh continues to use the Pentax name. Ricoh acquired all shares of the former Pentax Imaging Corp. and created a new division called Pentax Ricoh Imaging Company Ltd. in 2011.

Then on August 1st, 2013, Pentax Ricoh Imaging Ltd. changed its name to Ricoh Imaging Ltd., specifying its product naming strategy in a press release: "The company has...unveiled its future product brand strategy: both PENTAX and RICOH products will remain in the market under the new name to reinforce the company’s commitment to the business with Pentax becoming the brand for all DSLR, interchangeable lens cameras and binoculars, and Ricoh becoming its brand for compact cameras and new technological innovations."

Curiously, the Pentax name was originally a trademark of East German VEB Zeiss (VEB stands for Volkseigener Betrieb or "people-owned enterprise"), but was stripped from it after the war. Asahi, which was founded in 1919 but made its first camera in 1952, adopted the Pentax name in 1957.

Confused enough yet? The short version is that Pentax has been a brand name of Ricoh since 2011.

Kevin Purcell replies to Mike (partial comment): "To clarify, this was not quite the same as Sony and Konica/Minolta deal.

"Konica/Minolta is alive and well. One division still designs and builds lenses (and other optics) for third parties that put their own brands on them. This includes camera lenses which you see patented on a regular basis.

"Ricoh bought all of the Pentax Imaging company from Hoya which includes not only the ILC cameras but the compact cameras and sports optics (like binoculars and spotting scopes).

"Pentax is now really just a brand of Ricoh Imaging Co much as that might irk some Pentaxians."

Chas: "Hi I went back through my collection of old Pentax spec sheets and found that the little design quirk on the top of the pentaprism goes back to the AF [Asahiflex —Ed.] model introduced in 1957. Sadly my collection of old Pentax cameras doesn't include one or I would include a photo...."

Mike replies:Here it is. Right? [UPDATE: Nope, wrong. Linked is a Pentax K. Thanks to Tom for the correction. —Ed.]

David W. Scott: "Sold. Well done Pentax. I'm a Canadian Pentaxian that has been waiting a long time for this. I've dabbled in Nikon and Fuji, but my primary system is Pentax, both K-mount and screwmount. All but one of my lenses are full frame, because I knew we would get here eventually. I recently sold my K-5 to maximize the salvage value, hoping that the K-1 would deliver. It does, and at a world-beating price. The K-1 will be coming home to join the LX, K2, my Dad's Spotmatic F, and the quirky K-01."

vinck: "It makes me sad, actually. I really liked my K-5 and DA Limited lenses, and have a kind of fondness for Pentax. But try as I might, I can't see this making any sort of business sense. It really seems like a waste of good money.

"Let's see: launching a full frame camera, which is a niche even to DSLRs to begin with, long after everybody else. Those that needed full frame have gone looking elsewhere, bought the lenses in their new home, and are unlikely to return. Those that stayed with the brand didn't really need full frame, and probably still don't. And if they have bought DA lenses, those are not really useful on the K-1.

"Then there is the lack of lenses. For the time being, you have to contend with a handful of zooms, and no modern prime. Most old lenses won't be any good really on a 36-MP sensor. There's a reason Canon and Nikon have updated an awful lot of their lenses.

"So now they have to develop a full line of FF lenses in addition to the body. All this must have cost an awful lot of money and divert an awful lot of R&D resources, and will continue to do so. Pentax is a small player to start with, and the company now has to manage four lines of interchangeable lens cameras, where Nikon has three and Canon two. And it's not like the 645 or Q lines are fully fleshed out either.

"And all this money for...a DLSR? Seriously? The consensus seems to be that the future of DSLRs is pretty grim. They'll stay, but should be relegated to confidential volumes. This could have been the start of a new FF mirrorless system with a line of new lenses to be deployed. And adapters for old lenses to please those that have them. Instead, we have here something that should effectively prevent Pentax from developing any kind of mirrorless line because, well, resources are never unlimited.

"'For dedicated diehard Pentaxians.' Yes, indeed. But are there enough of them to recoup the development costs? I have my doubts.

"I wish this company well, I really do. But I fear this might not serve them well in the long-term...."

Michael Barker (partial comment): "I enjoyed reading that post! It's a camera that really, really needs to exist (well, compared to cameras in general). I'm pleased that it came out so over-the-top snazzy. When I visited the Wildlife Photographer of the Year exhibit at the Royal Ontario Museum it was all 5D Mark III's and D600's and D800's...maybe next time there'll be some Pentaxian winners? And, astrotracing sounds like a lot of fun...."

Tuesday, 16 February 2016

B&H Photo is having a massive Fuji sale event—all or at least most of Fuji's digital cameras and lenses are available at significant discounts. The X100T is $200 off; save $300 on either X-T1; the popular new weatherproof 16mm ƒ/1.4 is $200 off and so is the brilliant 50–140mm ƒ/2.8 constant-aperture zoom (didn't one reviewer say that one lens was worth building a whole system around? I can't find it now). There are numerous kit combinations on sale too.

P.S. I'll have an update on the book sale later this morning this afternoon.

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Earl Dunbar: "Uhm, the other thing that isn't on sale is the 35/2. Not that the current price is bad, but as you say, I'm just sayin'."

Stephen Scharf: "I was hoping you'd see the interview with David Hobby about how closely Fujifilm worked to gather 'Voice of the Customer' (VOC) with it's consortium of professional X-photographers. From my own perspective as a VOC professional, Fuji does a really good job of this. One of the most useful parts of the article that David remarked on was how Fuji considered, and actually made, many different prototype cameras to test and evaluate many different features and most importantly, the tradeoffs those features represented before settling on a final design. What most folks don't realize, particularly the trolls on the camera forums, is that many times, different functions conflict with one another, and it can be quite challenging to determine where and how the tradeoffs should be made (the classic one in photography is the old resolution vs. noise at high ISO tradeoff). This is hard work. When one considers all the features, and all the functions, and the sophistication of the subsystems that provide those functions and features we enjoy, the vast majority of customers simply do not understand how technically challenging engineering those subsystems and putting them into production on a mass scale really is. Mostly, they just gripe about not having a tilt screen, or IBIS, or tilt screen with touch control, blah, blah, blah. For example, the viewfinder on the X-Pro has three different optical subsystems built into one, one that fits in the top cover of the body. Think for a moment on the engineering sophistication it took to pull that off. Virtually no one else in the camera industry has anything comparable in functionality or features.

"Overall, Fuji does a helluva job, and Hobby's article does a great job of articulating that."

Note that I'm not trying to goad you to buy stuff. I'm trying to goad you to buy stuff through our links if you're going to be buying it anyway. :-) And thanks if you do.

Another item of good news a little later, but, first, I have to take the doggies to the groomer's, which is likely to be an adventure in canine excitability. If you're a dog person, you'll no doubt be relieved to know that yesterday both dogs, acting in coordinated fashion, successfully defended the house against the handheld vacuum cleaner. There was much barking and aggressive bravado, and victory was ultimately won when the handheld vacuum retreated to the closet. A close call, but, territory defended.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Sunday, 07 February 2016

I was thinking that the A6000 replacement might have IBIS. The A7 cameras have IBIS; the Olympus cameras have IBIS. It was rumored that the A6000 replacement would have IBIS. It seemed like a reasonable assumption. IBIS is one thing I miss.

Instead, Sony improved the autofocus speed and the video performance.

The new Sony A6300

You should never wait for what's coming like you know what's coming. Never assume. Until something exists, it doesn't exist.

I know, I should know! I keep telling other people not to do this, and you would think I could take my own advice.

But no.

Anyway, I'm pretty disappointed about the A6300.

How about you? Were faster autofocus and better video the two things you thought the small APS-C Sony ILC needed?

Is the A6xxx the first camera you think of when you think of a need for outstanding focus tracking?

Do we really need stills cameras to double as video cameras?

Finally, do you ever come running up to kick this particular football only to have Lucy yank it away?

Discuss....

Mike

[UPDATE: ...And we have a name for this! "I have noticed this phenomena more generally as 'pre-release syndrome.' To wit: 'any camera that hasn't been released yet contains all the features you were looking for in your next camera, until it is released.' Or more generally: no new camera can live up to the hype that we generate for ourselves regarding it." Thanks to MarkR for this. —MJ]

[UPDATE no. 2: I went to an opening this afternoon, and hauled the "old" (Sept. 2012, i.e. back when I was young) NEX-6, to refresh my memory and see if the focus speed really needed improving. I can't speak to the A6000, but the NEX-6 is pretty slow, as least with the Sigma 60mm DN I was using on it. —MJ]

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Dori: "If it had been me there would be weathersealing...might have switched over then, but IBIS would be good too."

Pete Mc: "Personally? Yes, this is the perfect update. I use my A6000 as part of a pair with an A7R. The A7 looks after high quality, low speed work. The A6000 looks after action—no need for IBIS, just give me better and better AF and I'm happy. I freely admit my use may be unusual, but to me the development of the A6xxx and A7x series as a pair is almost perfect."

Romano Giannetti: "I feel the same. Was waiting for the A6000-with-IBIS unicorn, to buy it with the alpha adapter to substitute my A55. But no.... And the A7 is out of the roof for me. Bummer."

Markus Spring (partial comment): "Maybe it"s due to the geographical situation (I live in Germany, with really short days in winter a.k.a half of the year), IBIS is the feature I treasure most in my cameras, and I wouldn't buy one without it. Especially when creating/taking pictures on a daily basis, additionally to the bread job, times with dwindling light are more the rule than the exception, but thanks to IBIS I really can make best use of them."

[For the full text of partial comments, please see the full Comments Section by clicking on "Comments" below. —Ed.]

JBo: "Not sure why, but I don't like stabilization. Using Nikon talk, using it doesn't feel like 'pure photography.' Seriously though, I've also succumbed to the "waiting for a perfect camera" syndrome more than once...I was almost sure things I was waiting for would happen, because it was so logical and desirable for me, and everyone surely shares my logic and desires, don't they?

Longer battery life in every new mirrorless camera—seems to gets shorter instead.

"In more than one way photo equipment reminds me of modern politics—I never seem to get what I vote for. Well, Fuji seems to be the one brand that actually delivers most of the things I wish for—hence I'm a little afraid they may lose the next elections. ;-) "

Huw Morgan (partial comment): "There was also a much-needed improvement to viewfinder resolution. I'm not sure the A6300 upgrade will propel a6000 users to part with cash, but there are many NEX-7 users (like me) who will probably upgrade to get the better focus performance. The sensor hasn't been rated by DxOMark yet, but if the high ISO noise performance is significantly better than the NEX-7, then an upgrade will be a no-brainer."

tex andrews: "Well, I'm not in the market for the A6300 or any other apsc camera, but with Sony I don't think the company is thinking about photographers' needs, per se. I am not saying they are indifferent, at all. But I think their main targets are Nikon and Canon. Thus it seems to me, from their every move for the past six years or so back to the A900,that they are ticking off items from a list (or two lists): 'Why is mirrorless inferior?' and 'Why is Sony inferior?'

"So, Price: box ticked in Sony's favor with both the A900 and the A850 especially, the first FF camera to break the sub $2k mark. Sensor MP number: box ticked in Sony's favor with the above two cameras, then with the A7R, and now with the A7RII (and the 645Z before it...). ISO/DR range: box ticked in Sony's favor with the sensors generally, but especially with the A7S and 645Z. And when they jumped into the mirrorless pool, they did so in such a way that they reduced their mirrorless competitors to other, lesser players, and probably quashed any hope Nikon or Canon had in making inroads there.

"But there were still a bunch of criticisms and niggles: the EVF-OVF battle, AF performance, Canon's video performance, the menus and haptics, etc. But Sony is chipping away at all of these as well, improving EVF's to the point where OVF is really only a personal preference, not one merited by any technical issues, improving low-light AF radically, improving video performance a great deal, second now only to the brand new Canon 1DS-MK-7-WXYZ-44-Q (and I'll bet not for long...remember, Sony has a long video history, broadcast quality), and 'improving' (translated: fixing) the menus and haptics as they go along. And with the new lens line, plus what they have brought out in E mount over the last several years by themselves and with Zeiss—and radically with the legacy lens abilities—chipping away at that 'no lenses' problem (or canard, depending on POV). They have some more boxes to tick off, but....

"Yes, all this pertains to us as users, but I think secondarily. Sony has two bigger fish to fry, and that is beginning to look more and more possible, as opposed to something most would have considered a fantasy six years ago. Contrast with Pentax and Fuji and to some extent Oly, niche makers whose prime targets seem to be photographers themselves, based on the way the cameras are made and perform. By the way, I had a very interesting discussion with a Pentax manager in the fall at the PhotoExpo show that really underscored this for Pentax (and me), as he discussed what he could about that company's upcoming FF camera."

"It's like looking at beautiful cars until you remember that these models have no steering wheels."

Andy Kochanowski: "Never even gave it a thought. Here is the funny thing about the former NEX line: for what it does, it is almost absurdly perfect. It's a mirrorless replacement of a mid-line DSLR, the type of camera that you would take on vacation, to shoot street photography, or maybe for a quick documentary project. It works unobtrusively, it gets decent battery life, its extra batteries are cheap, and you can control the basic functions you need without ever going near a menu.

"You could buy the A6000 for something like $400, which is what I paid for mine, and for another $150 get a perfectly decent image-stabilized kit lens. Is the kit lens a Zeiss? No. Is it decently, nicely sharp? Yes. Does Sony's software correct distortion in camera? Yes. Do its JPEGs look perfectly good? Yes. Does it use the best APS-C sensor in the world? Yes. What else do you need?

"I'm not immune from liking and occasionally wanting a cool, retro buttons 'n' dials, milled, black rangefindery camera. The Pen-F looks great, and I can just imagine how nice it would feel in hand with one of those Oly/Panny lenses. All the Fujis look cool as heck. Like an M6 with a Summicron made relevant for the digi age. I get it.

"Here is the thing. The AF in the A6000 is darn near instant. Unlike every other mirrorless I've used, and it's been a few, in real life it's easily on par with what was state of the art DSLR autofocus of a couple years ago. My A6000 can track a moving, running dog. My various Leicas and Panasonics couldn't. When I go out to shoot street stuff for a few hours, I get instant focus where I want it without even thinking about it. Can I say it again? It cost $400. [They're for sale new right now for $498, and are apparently staying in the lineup. —Ed.]

"From what I can see, Sony tweaked the few things in the A6000 that would make a better experience for the shooter. The A6000 sort of clatters a bit. The shutter now has a quiet mode. The EVF on the A6000 is good enough, but apparently the new one is OLED and like the A7's. Those are great. The A6000 feels a little plasticky (unlike the original NEX-7 which felt like a tank). The new camera is supposedly all magnesium and better weather sealed. And it's all supposedly even faster and gets better battery life.

robert e (partial comment): "'Instead, Sony improved the autofocus speed and the video performance.' Shouldn't that sentence start with 'Kidding!'?"

Michael H: "I'm a NEX-7 owner who has been waiting for this one...I wanted improved focus (check), silent shutter (check), equivalent or better EVF (check), and IBIS (arrggh!). If the ISO performance is much improved then I won't worry about the absence of IBIS and I will buy it. If an ISO improvement doesn't allow for an extra stop or two advantage then...???"